Clarification to Appendix D 

of November 24, 1987 FEDERAL RE:GISTER 

May 25, 1988 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch 

Air Quality Management Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
nave not Ot!en adoptea and/or implt!mente.d on a nationally cons1stent oas1s. 

ThlS clarification does not expand or modify existing federal regulatory 

r~~u1rements, but merely ennances Appendix 0 by l)rovidiny mar·~:: spec1t1c 

1nfonnation in cases wnere l)ast EPA guidance or approved rulE!making was 

va':)ue or amoiyuous. This document does not address issues cC>vereo in 

~ppenaix 0 related to new source review regulations. 

In tne Apri I 1~1:!7 1 etter from tne EPA Administrator to 1:11e Governurs 

of 42 States, EPA announced its intention to undertake a thrE!e-part 

process 1n its post-1~1:!7 Sll-' revisions. First, EPA was to r1~view all 

fecierally-a~o~~roved contro·l commitments in the State implementation plan 

':.J Ot!tenni ne wnetner tney nave been ado~o~ted. Second, EPA wa~i to revi ':!w 

wn~tner tnese aaopted measures are technically adequate and n~eet minimum 

natton41 standaras T'or consistency. Third, EPA was to 1nitiate a comprenens i ve ~o~rogram to detenni ne whether adopted measures are be1i ny effec~ i vel.y 

lmplementeo. Tnis aocument addresses many of tne "Appendix IJ" ~o~roolems 

uncovered during the second part of this process. Corrections of the 

aefic1encies aescrioed herein provide for a yreater aeyree or equitt 

and national consistency among all States ana localities tha1: receive 

post-1~~7 ozone SIP cal Is. 
2. 

g g

\See Attacnment l) ~ Where ~PA has ~r~viously s~ec1ri~d 3 ID VOC/hr or 1~ lo VOC/d~J 

cutufi, State may use it on actual ernissions basis or us~ 10 tiJ.Y 

tneorl:!tlcaa t)Ott!ntial emissiuns (design Cd~acity (or mclxlmum 

proauctionj ancJ ~7bU hr/yr) beior~ ada-on controi.-Car·e shoula oe 

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

emissions basis • ., Cutorf total determined from the sum of individual emi!;siun sour:es 

witnin same CTG category. (Exception: Petroleum markE!tiny -- storaye'tanks, terminals, and loadin\:1 rcScks mustoe con~oin~a.) 

., States may only use higher cutoffs if SUtJpOrted oy !l':. cmalysis on 

an emissions oasis (snowiny tnat no siynlficant emissiuns airrer~ntlal 

occurs between EPA guidance and State chOice). (See Attachment 2) 

Uetinition of lUO tpy non-CTG source-- 0 

0 

0 

Aggre\:late all unregulated sources (including sources wt1ich woul a 

nave oet!n covered oy a CTG if they had been aoove the f~PA-cScce~tea 

size cutoff--e.g •• <lOU tpy graphic drts sources). 

Base on theoretical potential emissions (desi~n capacil:y (or 

maximum production] and ~76U nr/yr) oefore add-on contr·ol.-

Cannot merely apply less-tnan-RACT controls to avoid applicabillty. 

Can restrict nours of operation by legally ana federally enrorceaole 

permit conditions to limit emissions below lOU tpy. 

"Once-in-always-in" conce~t must a~~ly (i.e •• if emiss·ions are 

found abov~ cutoff, then State must a~~ly RACT thereafter). 

3. Form of SurfcSc~ Coatiny Emission Limit Units-- ~ ~eyulations snould oe expressed as lo VOC/9a1 or codtiny (less 

water and "exempt" solvents). "Exempt" solvents are tt1ose a~ter.ninea oy EPA to nc1ve neylll:fible ~notocnemical rea<:tlvity. 

See VOC definition,· page 1-2. o If "equivalent" add-on controls, transfer efficiency. or emission 

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

snould.also oe expressed as lo VUC/yal of solids (or lb VUC/lb 

so 1 ids 10'rgraphi c arts). o Alternatlvely, tne re\:lulat1on cc1n contain a calculation conversion 

proc~dure to determine com~liance. Procedure must be c:learly defined r~.., I i Cc!D I~, ana consider tn~ aoove factors. (See At tctc:nment 3) ' 

o Daily emission caps are desirable but not mandatory unl,ess estab-

!lshed as l)a~t of tne SlP control-.strategy. They canMt oe us~a 

1n exchanye tor a relaxation of RACT. 
• Model definition: 

"Volatfle organic compound (VOC)--Any organic compound which 

participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions .. This incluces 

any organic compound other than the following compounds: 

methane, ethane, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethanel. CFC-11~ 

(trichlorotrifluoroethane), methylene chloride, CFC··ll 

Ctrichlorofluoromethane), CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethanel. CrC-22 

(chlorodifluoromethane), FC-23 (trifluoromethane), c:FC-114 

( di chl oro tetra fl uoroethane), CFC-115 ( ch 1 or open ta fl uoroetha ne l. 

These compounds have been determined to have negl i gii b le photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining cc,mpliance with 

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

Uhere such a method_ a 1 so inadvertently measures compounds wi tt'l 

negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may 

exclude these negligibly reactive compounds when determining 

compliance with an emissions standard." 

6. Corrections for Other VOC Rule Definitions--

• List from Appendix D: (coating, coating line, refirlishing, paper 

coating, fabric coating, vi ny 1 coating) 

• EPA Regions to make SIP calls on State-specific defiinitional proble~s 

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 procedure. A 

replicable baseline should be no less stringent than standard 

industry practice. 

• 60% default baseline acceptable for most large appliances, ~~~etal 

furniture, and miscellaneous metal coating operations; however, 

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

determine final compliance. 

• 30% pefault baseline generally acceptable for certain auto coatincs: 

i.e., surfacer and top coat 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 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 9eneric SIP provis~on (see discussion, page 2-14). 

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

RACT cornpli a nee. 
-~-

 The following situations are examples of cross

line averaging: 

(1) The source averages emissions between two or mc1re separate operations (e.g., auto prime coat and top coat) with the same or 

different regulatory limits; and 

( 2) The source averages emissions between two or mc1re 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., hour·ly, daily) anc: 

averaging method (arithmetic or weighted). 

• Regu 1a ti on must require comp 1 i ance on no 1 onger thar1 

daily basis (generally acceptable)~ 

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

1-20-84) 

• Compliance date extensions must meet EPA policy (Potter mer.~o 

8-7-86) . 

10. Recordkeeping Requirements--

• r~ust keep records consistent with compliance time fr·ames--daily 

compliance requires daily records 

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

ll. Test ~1ethods--Use most current EPA acceptable methods. Al 1 methods 

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

operations, see page 2-22. 

12. Capture Efficiency--

• Specify capture efficiency test method where capturE! efficiency is 

discussed or implie1 in limit (e.g., web-coating opE!rations with 

add-on control). 

• Employ most recent guidance on capture efficiency tE!sting (guidance forthcoming). 

13. Equipment Leak Components--

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

• Unsafe-to-monitor valves are required to be mon;tort~d when conditions 

would allow these valves to be monitored safely, e.!J·• during shutdown. 

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

• Generic approva 1 of emission trades is a 1 ready cove1·ed by EPA's 

emission trading policy statement (51 FR 43814, Dect!mber 4, 1986). 
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 ~eet the general principle of replicability described in EPA's 

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

• Federal Reaister notices that approve SIP revisions containing general 

prov1sions that may be construed as generic procedures should include 

·.EPA's "~arning" about residual authority to ensure consistent ~ctions 

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 redesignation 

under 40 CFR Part 81 only if it meets EPA's redesignation policy. 
\S!? revision due 1 year after work plan is submitted under SIP call) 

• llo addition a 1 regu 1 a tory 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). All such areas must meet .. reoui remen ts of Groups I, I I, and II I CTG source categories. 

• No additional RACT reQuirement <100 tpy for contiguous rural cour.ty 

SECO~O PHASE--FULL RESPOHSE 

(After EPA Publishes Final Ozone/CO Policy) 

• llew 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 

Group III 

> 100 tpy non CTG 

• ~lew rec:uirements possible for new isolated rural SIP call areas. Again, depends upon final policy. 

Groups I and II:~ 100 tpy coverage only 
• 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 basts. 

•• Cutoff total 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 plan~i de emi s.si ons > cutoff 1 imi 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 degreasers 

and tank trucks) 

• SIP call requires States to assess their existing VOC regulations and 

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

way of the s: rule (see Attachment 2) 

• In cases where past guidance recomfl'lends high cutoff (e.~~ •• 100 tpy l, 

SIP call should also recommend that State investigate small exemption 

levels to prepare for additional emission reductions under full response 

to SIP ca 11 
-~-

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

<100 tpy graphic arts sources 

--exclude regulated CTG sources 

• If > 100 tpy, evaluate RACT on all unregulated source types in plant 

• Even "status quo" (RACT-level) emissions must be put in r·egulation or 

federally enforceable permit form to avoid increases (e.~r •• 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 er1forceable 

permit (cannot just apply minima 1 controls to go bel ow lCIO tpy) 

• Employ "once-in-always-in" concept for applicability 
2-4 

FORM OF SURFACE COATING EMISSION 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 

• ihen rule must have VOC limits expressed as both: 

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

to aid in compliance determination 

~ 

•• pounds vee per gallon solids (or pounds voc per pound of solids for. 

graphic arts) 

~ 

•• 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. 

•"~.xempt" s'91vents are those determined by EPA to have negligible 

photochemical reactivity. See VOC DEFINITION, page 2-6. 
ppy pp

as water 

• Cannot talce credit for control of exempt sol vents for pul'"poses 

of emissions inventory and attainment demonstrations or new source 

review 

• Exempt solvents are only those identified in the following 

Federal Register 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 
I 

I. 

•• credit for transfer efficiency, or 

•• emissions trades and cross-line averaging 

• ihen rule must 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. 

•"~xemptu s'olvents are those determined by EPA to have neglligible 

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

coating 1 i ne 

•• refinishing 

•• paper coating 

•• fabric coating 

•• vinyl coating 

•·EPA Regions to make SIP calls on State-specific definitio1nal problems 

to ensure consistency with CTG's and to avoid vague or aml:>iguous 

wording. 
--~~eta 1 furniture 

--r>1i scellaneous meta 1 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 wa~~r 

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, 

VARIA"CES, AND A(TERMATIVE 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 
• Sased on daily weighted average 

• :~o credit for downtime; however, credit a 11 owed when ther·e are 

enforceable production limits. 

• Must be submitted as source-specific SIP rev1s1on, unless processed by 

the State under an EPA-approved bubble rule. ~ust be consistent with 

provisions of EPA ET policy 

• If allowed under EPA-approved generic bubble rule, generic rule must 

meet EPA ET policy* 

• Fix deficiencies in calculation procedures or compliance techniQues 

associated with generic regulations 

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

• • the source a vera ges emissions be tween two or more sepct rate 

operations (e.g., auto prime coat and top coat) with 1:he same 

or different regulatory limits; and 

•• the source averages emissions between two or more simiilar 

processes (e.g •• separate conveyor lines of similar mclchines) 

with the same or different regulatory limits 

·~OTE: SIP call needed for currently approved generic bubble rules 

that are inconsistent with EPA ET policy 
~.:.. 

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

Must receive EPA approval as SIP revision 

• Reexamine pre-O'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) 
EXAliPLES: 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 1b 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 r:ll!thod in 

calculating VOC content of coatings 

• Docu~ent methods used to calculate volume percent solids content of 

coatings 

• Separately enforceable provisions must clearly reQuire ri!Cordlceeping 

• Employ most recent EPA recordlceeping guidance 
+<:--· 

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

• Prescribe capture efficiency test method where capture efficiency 

is discussed or implied in limit (e.g •• web-coating operattions with 

add-on control). · 

··Employ most recent EPA guidance on capture efficiency testing. 
-fC.<__ 

• Unsafe-to-monitor valves are required to be monitored whE~n conditions 

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

. . 
~egional Office. 

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

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;~ 

•• reQuire that any source seeking approval of an exemption, variance, 

or alternative means of control demonstrates that iU control 

method achieves emissions reductions equal to or greatter than the 

emission reductions required by the SIP. 

• Provisions that are intended to be generic (i.e., not rE!quiring 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, DecembE!r 4, 1986). 

• Federal Reaister notices that approve SIP revisions containing general 

provisions that may be construed as generic procedures lihould include 

the following statement: 

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

generic bubble rules (51 FR 43853, ·column 3, 12-4-66), 

if a State-approved action under a generic rule does 

not meet all the requirements 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 will notify the Stllte 

and source in writing and specify any necessary rernedial 

measures. In such circumstances, EPA may take app1r-opriate 

remedial action to assure attainment and maintenance, 

including direct enforcement of the original SIP l"imits. 

• Seasonal controls (other than shutdown of natural gas afterburners 

or use of emulsified asphalt) are not allowed. 

• State redesignation to attainment classification must n1ot affect 

applicability of r~gulations. The-EPA will approve a redesignation 

under 40 CFR Part 81 only if it meets EPA's redesignati1on policy. 
AOOITIOHAL CLARIFICATION BY CTG SOURCE CATEGORY 

(For Selected Categories) 
Paper Coating 

Fabric Coating 

State may use: 

• 10 tpy theoretical potential emissions (design capacity [2r maximu~ 

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

·.3 lb VOC/hr or 15 lb/day actual emissions before add-on control 

• To show that there is no significant difference between "State-derive.j 

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

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

•• emissions after control under presumptive cutoff--with 

•• emissions after control under higher cutoff 

•• NOTE: s: rule applies to entire source category, not individual 

sources. RACT is the test for individual sourc:es. 

• Allow coatings usage rate (gal/day) as basis for exemption if shown 

eQuivalent to emission rate exemption (see EPA guidance n~mo from 

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

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

::ovember 4, 1987). 
for determining compliance with emission limit 

• Employ "once-in-always-in" concept for applic.ability 

• CTG limit recommendation--SO mg/1 

• Ensure that trucks using terminals pass leak-tight test 

. 

f· 

I 

~;. 
• Recommend CTG control alternative #3 (Submerged fill +vapor 

balance--in and out) 

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

~ for determining compliance 

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

• Recommend tank truck must ·be certified leak tight at bu'lk plant 
I

above permanent support surfaces or reQuire scaffolding ~~ight be 

exempt from Quarterly monitoring. Annual monitoring still reQuired. 
• No CTG cutoffs 

• Recommended cutoff--only recovered petroleum products with Reid 

vapor pressure 0.5 pounds or greater are covered. Affec·ted sources 

are not covered if throughput of these recovered petroleum products 

is < ZOO gal/day • 

. •. ~lay a 1 so wish to consider tiSPS where no cutoff is recomr.M!nded. 

Segregated storm water runoff drain systems and non-contc!ct 

cooling water systems are exempt. 
• Tank size: 

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

--exempt < 2,000 gal capacity storage tanks in place before 1/1/79 

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

• Gasoline throughput: 

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

--allow rolling 30-day ~verage for applicability level--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). 
•• Topcoat operation must include all 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 pounas of 

VOC per gallon of solids deposited with compliance calc:ulated on a daily 

weighted average basis if transfer efficiency is to be considered in 

determining compliance. In these cases, the EPA protocol may be app1ica~~~ 

for calculating daily surfacer emission rate. 

• The SIP should specify whether anti-chip materials applied to main body p~rts (e.g., rocker panels, tottom of doors and fenders~ and leading edge 

of roof) are treated as· surfacer or misce11aneoous 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 metal coatings. (See memorandu~ 

from Richard Rhoads, EPA/OAQPS, to Directors, Air and Hazardous :1a~e,.ia1s 

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

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

• No 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. 
1975). 

• Specify (1) no higher than 7,; oil distillate as maximur.1 allowable sohen: 

content in emulsified asphalt, as determined by ASTr~ dist·illation test 

D-244, or (2) allow use of certain grades or applications of emulsified 

asphalt-with the following maximum solvent contents as determined by ·AST~·1 D-244: (a) 3: Hmit for seal coats used in early sp1ring or late 

fall; (b) 3: limit when chip seals used when aggregate is dusty or 

dirty; (c) e: limit when mixing with open graded aggregate that is not . _well washed; and (d) 12: limit when mixing with dense graded aggregate 

(See memorandum from Richard Rhoads to Director. Air & Hazudous r·laterials ~ivision, 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 ( 1 onger than 1 month) (See 1nemorandum 

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

Regions I-X, Cutback Asphalt-Acceptable RACT Regulation. D4!Cember 19, 

1978). 

, g, p

Graphic Arts RACT, September 9, 1987.) 

• If a source wishes to average emissions across lines, it must meet 

the general provisions of the EPA emissions trading policy. 

• ~:r.ploy "once.:.in-always-in" concept for applicability 
ATTACHMENT 1 

CTG APPLICABILITY: 

CUTOFFS, EX~~TIONS, AND GENERAL 

APPLICABILITY 
I 

I 

-I 

7he E?A has ~ssued cont:-ol technique gu~del~ne (CTG) documents fo 

30 sou:-:e categor~es,-two :-egulatory gu~del~ne documents cove~~ng 25 o~ 

~~ese 30 source categor~es. and several pol~cy and other miscellaneous 

gu~dance memoranda. Part of the guidance provided in the CTG's, the 

~wo ~egulatory documents, and the guidance memoranda concerns cutoffs, 

exempt~ons, and other similar guidance on the applicability of the recommended cont:-ol techniques. This information is summarized ~n Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 for 29 of the 30 source categories. The CTG for the 30tn source catego:-y, Vegetaole on, was recommended by E?A not to be implemented by the 

States unt~l test method uncertainties were resolved, and thus is not inclu~e~ 

~n these tables. A complete list of refe:-ences is provided at the end of 

:nese tables. 

7n~s information represents guidance issued prior· to May, 1988. For 

categories with cutoffs listed as "None", no specific guidance on cutoffs has 

~een issued for this particular category although a 3 lb/hr or 15 lb/day 

general exemotion has been discussed in pre-1988 guidance. For current 

guidance on cutoffs for categories listed here as "None", see "Issues ~ela:~n; 

to VOC ~egulations. Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations - Clarificat~on 

to ~ppendix D of Novemoer 24, l9B7. Federal Register," May 1988. 

~lso, for CTG Groups I and II for nonattainment areas that nei:ne" 

"!Ceive~ an atta~nment date extension beyond 1982 nor received a not~ce of 

s:~ deficiencies ("SIP cills"), States were not required to cover sources 

wi~n emiss~ons less than 100 tons per year, even ~f the CTG or EPA gu~aance 

conta~ne~ no applicability size cutoff. 

Last Update: 5/16/88 
t 

JAUH I. l:IHUI rs 

Smircl! 

Caleyory I t:ulof f s 

....

-·--·--- ·············-···-···········-·······-· 

1_. __ L_o .. _d_i_n_g ___ _____________________ J _ 

2. Gasoline Bulk 

Plants 

(a)Storaye tanks wtth less 

than 2.000 gallons 

storage capacity (Ref. 

2. p. 5-l ) • 

(b)hemption for bulk 

plants wtth throughputs 

of less than 4.000 yals 

_______ 1 __ _ _c!!1__lRef 1. P· .,. 

l. Service StationsStage I gasoline storage containers of 

less than 2 .oos I Hers 

(550 gallons) capacity 

used exclusively for the 

fueling of implements of 

husbandry. provided the 

containers are equipped 

wtth sul•neryed f til 

pipes (Ref. 4. p. 29). 

(b)<7.5UU liters (2.000 

gallons) capacity 

tttnrano ta.nLrc. in 

... u • .. :I"" .......... ,,, r ·---

before l/l/79 (Ref. 4. 

p. 29). 

(c)<948 liters (250 gallons) capac tty storage 

tanks in t•lace after 

li'/11//U ("ef. 4. p.29). 

•B

(
! 

Soun:e 

t: a teyn ry 

IAIIH I. riiiiiiiS IIIIC tiiUJIII

t: lit() t ' s 

- •• • • . . .. • • • • -I • - - . . . . . .. • .. • • • • • .... • • • • • • . I - • • • • • 

( tl )Exempt Ions for serv tee 

stat iun tanks wt th 

thrt)uyhput s of no more 

than 10,000 yals/mopth 

or lltl,OOO yah/year 

____________________ , ___ _______ 

-•---

4. fixed Roof 

1 etmt Tanks 

5. Miscellaneous Refinery Sources 

(Vacuum Producing 

Systems, Wastewater 

Separators, and 

Process Unit Turna rounds) 

6. Cutback Asphalt 

(a)<l5U,tlOU liters (40,000 

gallons) storage 

capacity of volatile 

petro)Pum ltqutds (greathan 10.5kPa TVP) 

(Ref. 6, p. 6-1). 

(b)<I,60U,OOU ltters 

1420,000 gallons) 

storage capacity of 

crude oil and condensate prior to 

lease custody transfer 

•Ooes 

exter

·Does 

stora

p. 2

6, p. 6-:!L_ ___ I--

•None for vacuum producing 

systems and process untt 

turnarounds. 

• <200 ya 1/day for wasteseparators (Ref. 4, 

p. A-bH) 

·None (see C(XIIntent) 

·CTG 

sta

(R

•If 

th

pr

str

,, • 
l 

f. r· 

- ·-- -·---- --- ·-- -

Cate9nry 

I Alii l I • Uti UIT S I tllt liltn

t:utotfs 

.. 

-

................ 

-

.......... 

- • - .... •I --.......... - ....... - ... - .............. •I•--.. - 

b. Cutback Asphalt 

(continued) 

1. Solvent Hetal 

Cleaning 

(a) In urban nonattalnment 

areas, open top vapor 

degreasers with an 

open area of less than 

1 m2 from equipment 

standards (Ref. 12, 

p. 7-4) and conveyorlzed with 

less than 2.11 m of 

air/vapor Interface 

from requirement of a 

major control device 

(e.CJ., carbon adsorber) (Ref. 12, p. 

3-34). 

(b) In rural nonattatnment 

areas, all cold cleaners can be exen••ted 

and open to1• vapor or 

conveyurtzed de9reaslnCJ uperattons at one 

I' I ant luc at i un wlwre 

cmt ss tuns drt! IIIII t.uns 

•U

f

b

I

u

(

i

a

a

s

t

•N

•V

tt

·O

t

r

c
t' 

I Alii I I , Cllllll I S It lit liiWII

. -. Stlur:r_;--- ... -. - - -. ... 

t: ct l t:utntfs 

• • - • - ......... - ............. -4 ..... _ ............................... --·-·

' . Solvent Metal or less on ct facility- witle lldsis hctsetl on 

(continued) annual solvent 1111rchase records can be 

" eKemptetl (Ref. 14. 

I'· I). 

-

H. Can Coat tng •None 

IJ. Meta I Cot Is •None 

10. f abrt cs •None 

II. ·None 

12. and •None 

ltghkOuty Trucks 

13. Metal furniture •None 

14. Magnet Wtre ·None 

15. large Appliances ·None ·Qu

an

ex

(R

--
rSuur(t! 

Category 

I. I eak from Petroleum Refineries 

IAUII i'. t:IIIIIIIS H

Cutof ts I 

·leaks uf concentratIons 

less lhdn or etJUa I to 

lU ,uno ppm (Ref. IIJ, 1•. 

6-1). 

·N

t

•N

w

2. Miscellaneous Metal 

Parts 

·None 

-------------------

3. flatWood Panel tng I •None 

---------------·---------------------

4. Synthesized •<l5 lbs/day; for each 

ceuttcal Products vent from reactors, 

distillation riperat tons, crys tall t zers, 

centrlfuyes, and vacuooa dryers (Ref. 23, 

p. l-5). 

•T

f

p

t

a

e

a

r

a

t

m

•D•R

•R

e

d

·D

. ___ 
f.' ·!· 

Sour.ce· · · · · · · · 

Category 

!>. Rubber Tire Hty. ·None 

TABU 'l. liiUIIII1 II 

Cutoffs I 

·D

t

d

p

d

d

-- ---------------·-------- -·--·--- - ------11--2_0.

6. External Floating 

Roof Petroleum 

Tanks 

(a) <150,000 liters 

140,000 gallons) of 

storage capacity 

(Ref. 25, p. 5-l). 

(b) <1,600,000 liters 

(42U,OOO gallons) 

storage capacity used 

to store produced 

crude oi I and condensate prior to custody 

transfer (Ref. 25, 

p. 5-3). 

•D

w

p

•D

s

d

t

s

p

·D

-

w

k

e
r: 

· ·soair.ce- --- · ---- --- · -- · 

Cateyory 

IAIIH 2. t:IIIUIIS llHt fiROlltt II f.IG CAfffiltiU[S (cuncludt.!d) 

·-----------·.·· ---·--·----------------:---------··--

Cutoffs Com111ents 

·- -·-

....... ·--·· ............... -··-·-····················-•···· ... ··············-·····················

6. External Floattny 

Roof Petroleu• 

____ 

la•~k_!__(con~!__nued) 

•Does not apply to horizontal underyro

storage tanks storing JP-4 jet fuel 

p. ?. , 

1. Graphic Arts l·'!~o :1':'''' -~Rel.--2~~--l-------------· 

8. Perchloroethylene 

Dry Cleaning 

·None 

-- -- 1------· 

9. Gasoline Tank 

Trucks and Vapor 

Col teet ton 

Sys te• leaks 

·None 

------ .__ ___________________ _ 

·Adsorbers are not required where the

Inadequate space to acca..odate the• 

where there ts no way to desorb the•

. hardships •ay be found to exclude pl

froa using adsorbers (Ref. 27, p. 1-

·Adsorbers are also not required at c

operated fact lttt~s (Ref!_~(),_ &»!_ ll@

·The affected facilities are (I) gas

trucks that are ·equipped for vapor c

and C2) the vapor collection syste•

ter•lnals, bulk plants, and service 

that are equipped with vapor balance 

vapor processing _9.ste11S (Ref. 28LP
1· 

I. 

Source 

Cateyury 

Polymer Hanuf act uri ny 

IAUH J. t:liiUIIS UIR 

rut of t s 

·ApJlroximately l,UIIU tons 

of I i yh l I i •I 11 i tl a ml 

gaseous VOC processed 

( Sl! I! CUIIIIIII!Ill). 

•Pr

un

ma

th

em

-- ----------- ----------·-------- --

. 

---------------

__ , __ 

l. SOCHI and Polymer 

Hfy. Equipment 

leaks 

3. large Petroleum 

Dry Cleaners 

·leaks of concentrations 

less than IU,UOO ppm 

(Ref. 30, p. 3-2). 

·Does not apply to petroleum solvent dry cleaning 

fac tl It tes that consume 

less than 123,000 liters 

(32,5UU gallons) of 

petroleum solvent 

annually (Ref. 31, 

-- -------- -------------·-

4. Air Oxidation 

Processes - SOCHi 

•fact II ties having a total 

resources effectiveness 

(lRE) index value greater 

than one (I) would not be 

re•1ut red to meet RACT 

• Sm

Im

pr

fo

•Pr

VO

op

(R

__ _l?_t ______ , _____

lftulpment l.eaks 

from Natural lias/ 

Gasoline Prolesstny 

fJ I 

(a)leaks with vnc concentrat Inns less lhdn 

liJ ,IJIJIJ ,,,,m 

·llo

va

se
t 

IAUH J. t:llllll t S ttllt liiWlll' 

· · · · ·s-oairce- -· ---· ----- -- -· -· · · -· · ---- --· -

Cateyory Cutoffs 

. .. .. . 

-

. 

-

.. 

-

. 

-

............... 

--

........ 

-

............................ -· -....... 

£qutpment Leaks 

from Natural Gas/. 

Gasoltne Processtng 

PI ants ( cont tnued) 

(b)States may cons tder 

exempt iny non-complex 

gas plants that have 

destyn throuyh1mts of 

less than lO million 

scfd (Ref. 33. p. 

3-22) 

(c)RACT should apply 

only to 

contatntng or contacting a process stream 

with a VOC concentration of 1.0 percent 

by wetght or more 

(Ref. 33. p. 4-2). 

·Does 

ttng 

contr
, 

-. ~egulator-y Gu~dance foro Cont:-ol of Volat~le Organ~c Compound f~om 15 Categor~es of Stationa:-y Sources. EPA-905/2-78-001. Env~~onmental P:-otect~on Agency, Region V, A~:- and HazardiOtJS D~v~s~on. April 1978. 

Em~ss~ons 

u.s. 

Mater~a1s 

5. Memorandum. Richard G. Rhoads, Director, CPOO, EPA, to D·::-ector, A~~ anc 

Haza:-dous Mater~als Division, Regions 1-X. Evaluation of 10,000 gals/mont~ 

Th:-ougnput Exemptions for Petroleum Marketing Operat~ons. August 17, :979. 

5;· Cont~ol of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Peuoleum L~qu~cs 

~n F~xed-Roof Tanks. EPA-450/2-77-036. u. S. Environmenul Pr-otect~on 

Agency. Off~ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Dl!cember 1977. 

OAQPS No. 1.2-089. . 

7. Memorandum. B. Polglase, Technical Guidance Section, EPA., to G. 1". He1ms, Ch~ef, Control Programs Operation Branch, EPA. Applicability of Fuel 

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

a. Cont:-o 1 of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems. Wastewater Separators 

and ?:-ocess Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-77-025. U.S. Env~:-onmental 

;:>rotection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

October 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-081. 

9. Cont~ol of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback Asphalt. 

E?A-450/2-77-037. U.S. Env~:-onmental Protection Agency, Office of ~~r Oual~ty Planning and Standards. December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-090. 

!0. Memorandum. R. G. Rhoads, Di~ector, CPOO, EPA, to Di~ector, A~~ ana ~azar1ous Materials Division, Regions I-X. Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulat~o,s. 

'1arch 6, 1979. 

ll. Memorandum. R. l'i. Rhoads, D~:-ector, CPOO, EPA, to Directc1r, A~r ana 

Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X. Cutback Asphalt - Acceptaole RACT Regu;lation. Oecembe:- 19, 1978. 

12. Cont~ol of Volatile Organic Emissions fr-om Solvent Metal Cleaning. 

E?A-450/2-77-022. IJ.S. Envi:-onmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standa~ds. Novembe~ 1977. 
16. 

gy 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Stanaaras. May 

1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-07:3. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 

-Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

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

Stationary Sources 

EPA-450/2-77-032. 

Quality Planning anc 

17. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources 

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

2-77-Q33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office o1f Air QualitJ 

Planning and Standards. December 1?77. OAQPS No. 1.2-08:7. 

18. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existiny Stationary Sources 

-Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA 4510/2-77-034. ·· 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Plannin; and Standarcs. 

December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-088. 

, Q 

... 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

Control of Volatile Organic Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. 

E~A 450/2-78-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of ~ir Quality ~lanning and Standards. June 1978. OAQPS Net. 1.2-111. 

Guidance to State and Local Agenchs in Preparing Regulations :o Cont:-o; 

Volatile Organic Compounds from Ten Stationary Source Cat:egories. 

E?A-450/2-79-Q04, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of ~ir 

Quality Planning and Standards. Septemoer 1979. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stati.onary SourcesVolume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Parts and Pr·oaucts. E?~-

450/2-78-Q15. u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of ~ir Oua;i:y 

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

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Statiionary SourcesVolume V,II: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Panelirtg. E?A-450/2-

78-032 •. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

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

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture o1' Synthesi;:ed 

Pharmaceutical Products. EPA-450/2-78-029. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Qua 1 i ty P 1 ann in g and Standa ra~;. Decemoe r 19 ';' 3. 

OAOPS No. 1.2-105. 
,-_, . 

2S. 

76-033. u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air QualitJ 

Planning ana Standards. DeceiTi:ler 1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-109. 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 

Systems: EPA-450/2-76-050. U.S. Environmental Protecti1:>n Agency, Office 

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

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank TrucKs 

ana Vapor Collection Systems. EPA-450/2-76-051. U.S. E.nvironmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. De~emoe!"' 

1978. OAQPS No. 1.2-119. 

29. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of 

High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyren'e Resins. 

E?A-450/3-83-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards. November 1983. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

..,.., 

_ .... 

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

March 1984. 

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. 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation 

Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Inaustry. E?.~-

450/3-a4-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DEcemoer 1984 . 

:ontr-ol of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural 

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

Protection Agency. December 1983. 
ATTACHMENT 2 

E~~LE 5% RULE CALCULATION 
Pre-control Post Control Post Controi 

(Potential) ( CTG Allowable) (St. Rec. Al 1owa:.1e; 

Plant .. A" 100 t/yr 19 t/yr 1 9 t/yr 

Plant .. B .. - 300 t/yr 57 t/yr 57 t/yr 

Plant "C" 18.5 t/yr 3.5 t/yr 1 8. 5 t/yr 

?lant ··o·· 80 t/yr 15.2 t/yr 1 5. 2 t/yr 

?lant "E .. 90 t/yr 17.1 t/yr 1 7. 1 t/'lr 

· . iota 1 588.5 t/yr ll 1. 8 t/yr 126. c t/yr 

7he cutpoi nt recommended by EPA for the meta 1 furniture· source 

category was a VOC emissions level of 10 tons per yea~ 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 

emissions by applying a 10 ton/yr cutoff. 

An evaluation of the various plant potential emissions (assuming 9C~ 

capture efficie.ncy and 90: control) indicated that post control (CTG) 

allowable VOC emissions (with a 10 ton. per year cutoff) would be lll.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 from the metal 

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

1 5 

TTI.8 X 1 oo. = 13.4 percent 

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

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

thus, the 2~ ton/yr cutoff would not be acceptable. 
ATTACHMENT 3 

VOC CONVERSION CALCULATIONS: COATINGS 
VOC CONVERSION CALCULATIONS: 

COATINGS 

OZONE AND CO PROGRAMS BRANCH 

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING & STANOARCIS 

FEBRUARY, 1988· 

• 

I 

-~-
tCOMPAHISON OF VOC REG

#VOC/GAL COATING vs #

EXAMPLE CONVERSI

GI\/EI!: • .:- .·,:: .. · ,-,; '.u.-; /!VOC/GAL COATIN

;J : . : ... : ! I I . . - - 7. 3 6 #VOC I GAL 

r hl--:,L:-... :: . -. ··- ::: TO---#VOC

. 

STEP # 1 -- WHAT'S VOLUME Of VOC IN 1 .GA

3.06VOC • 1 GAL VOC :::: 0.408 GAL 

GAL COAT 7.36# VOC · GAL COAT

STEP #2-- WHAT'S THE VOL OF SOLIDS IN 

1 GAL COATING -VOL VOC == VOL 

1 - 0.408 = 0.592 

STEP#3-- HOW MANY GAL Of COATING DOE

A GAL Of SOLIDS ? (INVERSE Of 

i = i.669 GA

0.592 GAL SOLIDS GAL SO

STEP#4-- CONVERT 3.0# VOC/GAL COATING 

• 

__ GAL COAT

GAL COAT GAL SOLIDS 

I 

·' .. ... IL/t ;;\I : : I I
r 

OF VOC R

#VOC/GAL COATING vs #V

c:a 

::l 

13.. 

rn 

::l 

0 

rn 

l!J 

" u 0 

> ==It:: 

35 I I 30 

25 

20 

15 

F

10 

5 

0 

t II I I I ... -. _ •. --------- -

1 I I I I I I ,,

0 1 2 

#VOC/GAL OF CO
La 

:. •) 

... - :.4 

.... 

-·= :.s 

-· ..... 

-··- ::.4 

::.o 

::.a 

... •) 

4.: 

4.4 

4.e 

4.8 

~- •) 

~-~ 

~-= ... C" -.' 

5.3 

5.9 

Q. •:J 

6. 1 

e. -

: .... 

--. -- ~. = -. -:" 

-.... -

. i 

-

::.4 

... - -• I 

::. 1 

4.(1 

4.~ 

~.1 

~.7 

= .. :. 

7. t) 

7.9 

e. a 

9.8 

1(1.9 

1::.e 

15.~ 

:1.9 

... -..J· -. .;. :i.4 

=~.i 

-... C" 

-·-· ...J 

:.~.e 

-+::.7 

4~. l 

.:=::.~ 

-... -: 

=-·=. ~ 

1 .1. <·. -+ 

i. .. ::. i 

-··· 1 • 

-. -·-------- ·----------···-------- --.::._., .. £: :"•JC !:IErlSIT~ = 7.:::= #')QC:G~L 

50LI05 DEN~ITf ~ 1c:~.0 ~~G~L 

(•. 1 

•).: 

. ... '·'•-

•).: 

,:, . :: 

t). :: 

(•.:. 

•). 4 

t). 4 

(1.4 

t). ~ 

•). 5 

(I.e, 

(1. 7 

1). a 

t). 9 

1. (• 

1.4 

1. 5 

l.Q 

1.'7 

1.0 

... ... 

... ... -· -· :.': 

- , -· .. 

. = 

-. -· 

4 .·. 

·+.-

~-= 

::. ·.· 
:...?SOL=~NS/lCI' 

-.. 

~EM ~F~!NT USING FORMAT P~INTS OUT ~NSWERS WITH ONE 

~EM ~L50 S~ IPS SFACES PER ALL THE •••••••••••••·; ~EM SEE PAGE 7-1~7 OF GW-~ASIC MANUAL 

~F~INT USING "••••••••••••••·•":X:ANS:L~SOL 

NE ~( T X 

: ::.:H) W= 1 I : 

l.;.,>(• ..:.~S= '( •W 

:~:5 REM DENS!~~ OF SOLIDS IS 1~ ~VOC/GAL 

:.1::·:, l-E50L=AN;/1.:,' ~ ':: ·>·> :..:=:; II'JT usING II ................. II: .(:AN$: i__E.SOL 

! :•:u:> ~,..;::!=:!NT: !..F F: I NT: LF·R I NT " 

--------------------------------------------------------- :;·:-:. :..=:::NT:LF~!NT " 

!=5<· t_:=c::!'JT" 

-~:. 

ASSUMES VOC DENSIT¥ = ~.:= •vOC/GAL" 

SOLIDS DENSITY= 1=.(1 •IGAL" 

-
ATTACHMENT 4 

TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES 

FOR GROUP·I, II, AND III CTG'S 
# 

/\111\UIHI Nf Ill HI M11 IIUIH JIAI(I(

r_y_ _________ _______ _ 

Cans, Coils, fabric, and 

Automobiles and liyht-Outy 

Trucks 

Meta I furniture 

Haynetic Wire Coatiny 

l a Avv I i a nee 

Tl S I Ml lllliU S Ult P

CTG 

Uocument t•umber 
... 

-

---

-

.r. 

--

-

-

•J" 

= 

= 

...:-

- . ::.:: 

--

-.=-

-

- . =--· --

<: ~: 

-.-

= 1.,1 

..= = < .... :-.. 

==-

--

~ 

~ 

:"1..1 

= I 

--

.,. 

~ 

-

! 

•· -

-

"' :1 

-.,. 

••• :.1 

,:., c.,.: .. 

!.---~ ·- :.: "': .., ;.: .: .: 

_., 

,..., 

-I 

--I 

:-.a 

::::::-

.. I 

< 

-.... 

-

-

, :1 

*'til -:,., - "1:1 .... 

~- ~ 

:1 -

5~~ 

-=-

t~ 

--

·~ 

.. 

-

_., 

-- _, - ..r.;:.: ... - ... "' - -

~ = .: ·- ~-­ ·= , - ... 

=-· -

= ~ ~ '= .~ ... - ... -:.: "': 

~·=~ !~- =-

~ 

--

--I 

:-.a 

::::::-

,; 

.. I 

~ 

-

--

= = 

I 

-
/' -

= 

-=~; 

; -ii i 

-

""· --·· 

:.-

i: =--

< =· 

'-' 

~ -

= • ---... -

-· ; 

..,.; 

a: 

-~ 

= 

i -

.... -

.... 

= -

I 

~ 

::z.,. -

"' 

~"' 

~ . ..., "' Q 

!~ ~ 

::-= 

:J'I~ 

~ -

="~~' = ~ 

-== 

~~.., 

= - ~ ~ 

-

~ 

:t :r '-

.,= 

= = 

-:J-.l ~ 

'..J ~·­

>:i- -

---·--..., 

= I --I 

:'\.1 

::::-

J=i 

~ 

I 

~ .... 

--

% ·-:; 

.J'I 

< 

.... 

• I 

=-- c. "=' 

~~~ c.; ·-"" = ·- .- :.r !:.. -' "= '- ·- , '- = '-' ~ =-·- ~ 1.1 --~= ._, 

.... -'o:l 

= "t: 

~ 

(,.,)~ 

~ 

- --I - -: ~ 

<< "=' -
_.., --

= 

= 

= ...... :.1• f ~ 2:. 

i ; -::. -~ :.:· ..; ..; - ---

--

:.E 

:._. 

< ~· 

~· 

~ 

= ..-= --· 

--

= 

... - = 

... ., 

:1: 

=-:'I 

..,. = 

= 

.:; --

::oo.- :.. ., :;. = ~ ·--':.; 

.... :.~-

~ .: 

= 

•..: 

=-~ -x - ... 

_., --I --

_..,. 

'":oJ 

: I.. 

:..;~ 

\,1-

-: ~ -~ ... .. ;:;~ 

--: 

' ··-

< 

:._. ·= - .. -:a: - ~ - = -

_. --:.1 "' >:'I 

--

Vi -

:"1..1 

..., -I 

,::::: -

I 

:"1..1 

::::::-

:::; 

o:r 

I 

< 

~ 

... -Q 

~ 

·--

":: 

e::-, 

~ 

:.1 

-

~ ~ 

~~ 

v;-

::oo.:: 

~ lC -

=- '.J-~ -o .... 

----j 

--~ 

:.1 

~ - -o = -_. ... ~ 

= I.. 

:1 .., - :I:Q 

:"I 

N --I --I 

="' 

o:r 

~ I 

~ ...ool 

g 

I ---

< 

N -----·~ :: 

= 

= I --

< 

:.. 

I.. --

~ 

:.1 

.. ----

 N ---

oJ 

.... = .•. :.1 > •• 

.;; 

.;, -.. 

::"1 

! -· 

'7 ---I 

:-... -

= _., 

o:r I 

~ ...ool -

"' 

I.. 

< ~: -.:11 

l..J :., 

=~ .:= •: t ~I 

~ 

:"1..1 -----

... -

:"1 

= -: 

-

-~ -

~ I --I 

="' 

::::-

~ --

I 

~ 

Jl 

""" c 

'0 -

Q --

.... 

... 

• 

-

·---

.. 

ai 

..: --

-

= 

:. 

.:: 

..: -I 
Jt 

...0: 

~ :... -

~ ~ 

:-~ :::.., .. I r.. - ... 

~ 

- -=· ,;;:; 

-· -· -~ 

-

-
- : --= 

r...n '- '- 

- = S" - :. :"1.; ;:. ~ • ~ • .:1. =- '- - - - < =-

= 

- = - = 

-- = 

-- ;-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- c..: 

- c..: 

-< .. :. _., oJt 

= : 

- ; 

- % = 2: ~ < -

- ... ... ... ... 

"': :: ....... 

 =· :, : ..... % 

= 

- _.. ... - • i :: 

.~ 

.~ 

., 

-

-

-·-

-

- :.1 :.1 

-

- • E :'1 ~ ~ ~ 

- c: a - ~ -· = 

= • ·- • 

- '- c: '-

-

-

- -· 

-Q :.1 ... Q .. -

-

-'a 

- 1..1 

-

- ~ 

-

- = 

= 

- .... .., = ~ c: Q 

... '- I ·- c:·- I 

< .., 

- ~ "' :i • ~ "1\1 

- ~: - -· ,;: = 2: = :: :i ..... ~ 

- -· ..... -· 

-- :.: ..... - =\ -

="' .r •. = - - ;II "' - - .::l - ~: ~ 

,..., '-

- g 

-· I = 

-- -· 

-

- -= :"\,; I I ' -· ::.1 

ii 

.., .., :-'I 

I = = = "' ·' . .: ,_, I I I "" JO 

::::- :-'I ,..., :-'I 

·-

- ::::-

- .:::; ::::- ::::-

.::; .::; .::; .... 1..; ::.1 ... 

-

= 

:. I .. .. .. -· = 

-, ~ I I I 

~I < ~ ~ ~' ·- :51 ...... loW 

Q, 

~ 1.1.1 -· I..: 

-

c..: 

:; 

a I 

I ::; ~ "' :::00. '-

-

-

-

- =- :::00. 

-

-

- Q 

! ., "1\1 Q, '--

-

J'l 

-

"1\1 

:] 

- :.1 

-

- ::0.. :::00. 

:.a c 

- > c: :::..-

-

-

-~ 

- ::. ~ a ., a' ... :.1 ~ ... ~ ·- , '- ... ::"1 -., ~ :'1 = -:.a - •II '- >. -:.1 1.1'1 = -~ - :: 

'-· ::. ... .... 1..1 :.1 

- < 

-

- "1\1 ::.1 I ., 

- ... "' :.1 ; 1..1 .=::o.. ~ ..,., 

-· 

:'1 ?"' = x- = ="~ ;:.; 

=· '-

-

-'- ;.;- = ·- ... :.a :5 

-· -:: 

- "1\1 ~ :;) "1\1 = ::.1 

-

- ....,; z: "" = ::• .r. 

-~~ 
..,; ----

=-

~ -

.:::. ----· 

... ---= 

... --

~ 

.: ----... -= 

·...; --I -

< 

---.. -;: 

~ 

·---

= ---

= -

= -

---

= ~ = -

--'- ~ :, - =- l-

=-

=~ .. -=~ ~!'.It .... 

= <- -==-

~- --

~ 

-:I .. ·- -=-

~-l --~ 

:"... . .. ::; -

.. 

-

= 

:'1:.1 

=- -

--

,_ -

:: 

! 

·- . • _-s 

·= ...... ... =" --: ·-

'.J 

. ,_ ··- -~> 

1:-

-

= - ~ ~_., 

~ :S = 

< 

--

= 

= ~ .: ..... 

:, 

- ~ 

= -

= 

... 

..... 

!! 

~ 

= -

>. 

. 

-! --

= 

. 

.r. 

>. 

-· 

-, -

i 

:z:: .., 

-

.. = ~ ---

--

:. 

- ,.,_ 

--- --- -..... ·~ 

:-.= ... -:z:: ~ < 

. 

-

'="' = 

. -

- :1 

=- = ....,_ 

:I_.., -= 

·-N - ·..= ·- • ..= =u~ 

·~ <Z 

:. 

.... = 

-= 

! 

.... -

= --

= 

... = 

!' 

·-

-=· :a_ -:.. ·= 

·-·- ... = ---

=== 

~ 

--:: 

-::_ Zi 

i ~ - ~ ~-­ :, > 

> = :!-

• = 

=-

.... 

"' ..... ... :.; 

~~ 

i -~ .j-

--

=s -

=- ... • 

':lVI 

= 

"= = 

= «:.1·-= -

=.., ... ·--

~ = :.: :-a =-~ 

,;:;- --

.., . ~ 

= 

~~ ~ - ':.1 

.e·: --

~~ - = 

·~ 

-· 

. ----

= 

'...J 

.. -----

~ = -..... 

= -j 

... 

~ 

!! 

... 

V'l 

':I -

• 
. 

 

 

 

" .. I l. 

Ill 

n 

,, 

IU 

t: 

" I. 

c 

c..• 

i.""i 

"' 1.!1 

:-. 

n 

,., u 

c 

::ll 

0 

n 

.. -

ij 

1.1 

u 

c 

.., ,.., 

c L•h ''"" 

. .., ·• 

"' .,.... 

... 0 ·-· 

Ill I 

.. , "' •:1 IJ 

Q 

.. . ' 

nu 

C"> 

!_t 

--

., I I •J "' ,., 

c: "' 

·r- -· r n• 

... , .. 

,. 

,, . ..,, 

( I .. , 

• I 

•• 

'l 

I 

•• 

... 

l' 

.. I 

.. 

fl 

Ill 

:J 

... 

. I 

•I 

'!I 

I } 

•u 

I' 

f') 

'Y. 

... 

'f) 

·t 

"' l( 

... 

Ill 

_, 

tJ 

c 

::J 

c• 

o. 

E 

I) 

u 

u 

·-

c 

.., 

(n 

.._ 

,.., 

"' 

I I 

.., 

Q 

:--

... 

0 

c 

0 

.. 

"' I. 

r 

f\1 r· 1 

It C(1 

••• (11 

'" ·-· 

"I 

II 

•• 

,. • 

II• 

:< 

'I 

•II 

,,. 

II 

'I 

•• • 

" 

•n 

Ill 

" .._ :J 

0 

1/1 

t· 

"' r.

0 

w 

... 

.. 

.,, 

F. 

(1 

.._ 

.. -

VI 

u 

c 

.., 

c..n 

.._ 

,., 

0 .,._ • 

uo 

IQCX) 

C!l> 

ftl ••• 

U1 

0 

.., ...... 

:t: 

Of 

'1- c 

n .:1 

., 

c 

0 

... "' "' ,..._ 

r: n• 

-

.... 

f--.: 

n1 IL 

It 

"''" •t 

1'1 

•'I 

tl 

.. 

I 

.. 

•II 

"' 

••• 

r: 

I 

f." , •. 

)( 

"• {J 

It t· 

.. "' 

"' J 

' u Ill •( 

Cl 

•I'J 

,, •v 

(" 

... ,.. 

"''· t: (..) 

p 

t .I ';J 

... 

.. 

"' ... Ill 

"' U> '1: C' 

.... 

.. ,., 

c: r) ftl ,_, 

p 

ou c "' 

l) "' 

··- .._ .._ 

"' ::ll 

., "en 

..,._ 

,. 0 

Ill Ill 

·- u 

..... 

wovo --

.,, 0 

- w c 

... tl> 

o--

111 

0 

-u ate 

"'"' r: 

t:? 

"' 

Ql 0 

nt'l 

·I 

I' I 

.. 

f) 

I' 

,. 

l' '" 

Ill 

f " 

,,. 

t: 

... 

r: 

,_ 

n. 

.._ 

0 

:•, 

I' 

til 

c 

"' (.:1 

u 

c.-.: 

"' )( 

......... 

cu 

ovc 

..,., 

en 

00. 

u.-.: 

L 

GIO 

., P\0 

... x 

::EU.. 

u 

ftl 

.- 0 

. 

·-

.., llllf 

.., 

Ill 

0 0> 

:--r: 

.... 

... •' oou 

I} 

c l.J 

0 

.-u 

..,Ill 

..,.., 

c ou 

r: 

Ill 

•• 0 

IVC 

t'l "' 

•( 

"'' ''I 

(I 

I' '·' 

•• 

•II 

l' 

I. 

,, 

f I 

L 

"I 

I I 

VI 

..I 

til 

r: 

u 

Ill 

'" 

I" 

,,, 

., 

c 

.., 

"' L r'\ 

c "' 

c: "' 

... 

Ill 

f? 

"' ::ll 

(I 

1\' 

"' .., 

CJ 

,_, "' . ( 

0 )( 

,_ 

tJ 

... c 

,..., 

a 

c '.1 0 r( 

I I 

'ISO 

c:., 

rr.: 

nl I J 

•• 

·J• CL 

f ' ·t 

... 

,,, 

\I 

1.' 

r 

.. 

,,, 

,. 

'" l' 

... 

It 

... 

lh 

r: 

,, 

'" c 

0 

.., ,., 

...('(' 

... 1• 

,, ... 

c 

"' .., ... C.-o 

f') 

t.t I' 

Ill 

U:J 

Ul 

c ::ll 

"'r1: 0> 

L • 

OUl 

0> 

Ill .,, 

::llr---

OM 

cu 

"' n: 

.., 

··-

n) 

- rt 

.., 

L' 

C1L 

'- Ill 

t-1 

"-:--, 

c c "' 0 •C: 

·-

w r: 

ovo 

c .... 

... .. 

r;:: 

nl 

•• c 

... Q 

.-.. ' 

. ( 

. .. 

1'1 

" .. 

t: 

•• 111 

, 

I 

l 

fl "' 

•II 

(J 

r0 

Oil 

(J> 1: 

,, =I 

c f•t 

0 (1} 

(1t 

w 

... 

,_ 

... 

c: 

"' I.J c 

n 

L' 

... 

. "' -· 

,, 

"' il. 

u •( 

c 

.., ... 

"'0> 

Len 

0 •• 

Ill 

::ll 

"' .., 1..!1 

.., 

... 

0 

t-

,., 

rn ' 

IL 

-:f 

.._ 

01 

,., 

•0 

.... c 

'(') . ( 

c l.l 

0 •• 

.... .._ 

..... 

"' I. 

c: ··-c 

f 

'II ... 

... :--

.,. .. 

, .. til 

. 

•O 

.. 

'" 

II 

.. 

r: 

,. 

Ill 

:c 

( ,, 

r: 

Ill 

'J 

'of! 

.., 

I 

;-, 

til 

="' , .... 

··- 1\) -· .. ,. 

..... 

r:J 

ftl<n 

c ... 

.. 

Ovt 

Ill ::ll 

.., U> 

1'1 :J 

··-n 

,..._ "' .,, .,..,. 

ftl r·-

l:r'l 

.. 

r.rr: 

tl>h • 

... 

,_ ") 

·t 

.._ 

0 

UOI 

Oil VI " .•. 

I-

.._ 

:1 

c :'1 

r>u 

.. "' 

.. 

--

"' I c ... ... .._ 

[ ... : '" 

f\1 '" 

.... ., ... "' 

( 1 (\ 

·-· f'l 

l' 

IJ 

.. 

.,, 

i 

I 
ATTACHMENT 5 

I~DEX TO EPA GUIDANCE MEMORANDUMS AND POLICIES 
5. 2/24/78 c:-i teria for Approval of 1979 SIP ~vision:s ACminist:at::::-

6. 3!16/iS txample Demonstration of Attainment for Rhoads 

Photochemical Oxidants 

'· 4/03/78 ~tage I Vapor ~ec:overy - Bulk Plants Bar!:le:-

s. 4/28/iS Development of Regulations for HC RACr from Ba:-!:le:-

erG's 

9. 5!19/78 criteria for Prcposing Approval of Revision ~3 :R 21673 

to Plans for Nonattainment Areas 

10. 6/05/78 ~.Jla tions for HC Sa.arces Covered bJ C'l'Gs Helms 

11. 6!13/78 Application of RACT to Point Sa.arces of vo: Neligan 

in Rural Areas 

12. 6/30/78 Vapor Recovery Regulations Required to Meet Rhoaes 

RACI' Requi.reftl!nts for the 1979 SIP 

13. 7/03/78 Internal Offsets for RAcr Categories Hawkins 

14. 7/l.0/78 Procedures for ,.._asurin; Volatile Or9anic Rhoads 

Caqx:unds 

15. 8/04/78 Requirenent for VOC RACT Regulations in all Hawkins 

Oxidant Nonattainrrent Areas 

16. 8/16/78 Clarification of Attainment/Nonattainment Rhoaes 

evaluation G.aidance 

17. 8/23/78 Oxidant Standard Hawkins 

lB. 8/24/78. Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissions cf 'Barber 

Methyl Chlorofo:m 

19. 9/0i/78 Clarification of Oegreasing Regulation Rhoads 

Requirements 

-- 20. 9/11/78 Continuity of SIP Regulations Hawkins -

-10:.:<.. 
26. 

0/6/78 

;;

:2i. 10/27/78 Olcidant Standard WoJ:k GrOJp Meeting on 10/19/78 Hei:n 

28. ll/03/78 \blatile Or;anic CaPp:unds Emissions InveJ,tory Bart:er 

29. 1l/03/i8 Cata:;;orical Canpliance Schedule for vee Sc:urces Baeer 

30. 11/09!78 Clarification Clf Paper Coating Definition for Rhoads 

VU: Scurces 

3:. 11/13/18 \oeste Ois;:osal Jte;ulations for vtJC Calc:a;ni 

32. ll/l3/7t! Clarification Clf REP for OJCidant Control Barber 

Strategies 

33. ll/16/78 \blatile Organic ~und !)nissions ~c1~icns Bar:er 

at Qo1 

34. ll/21/78 MCl' ~tions for Can Coating ~rations Rhoads 

35. 12/07/78 Se1ec::.ion Clf Ox Cesi;n Value Rhoads 

36. 12/19/78 OJt!:>ac:k Asphalt - AcceptAble RAC'I' ~at:ion Rhoads 

3i. 12/20/78 Availability of End Seal C:mpounds for Cal~ Helms 

Manufacturin; Operations 

38. 12/21/78 ~asona!:lle f\Jrther Pro;ress Rec;ui~nts :Eor .larles 

Areas with ~fficult Oxidant Problems 

39. 12/22/78 Jequest · for Res;:cnse to Prc::posed ~ianc::e ~n 

Scnedules l:rj the New En;land States fer 

Coordinated Air Use Ma~ernent (N~) 

40. 12/29/78 iSO and NSR SIP Revision SJ.tmittals Hc::trt\an 

-41. l/16/79 Continuity of SIP Regulations - ~vised Hawk.ins 

Enclosure 

42. 1/16/79 New England States fQr Coordinated Air Usa Rhoac4.s 

Managanent (NESCAlt1) CO"'''pliance Prc:lgram fl:% vu: 

-fC<:... - Sources 

43. 1/25179 Consistency in VDC Regulations HelJ'IS 
~visions for Nonattainnent Areas 

49. 4/13/79 Fabric Coat.in; E)nission t.iJni ts Hel.'TS 

so. S/Ol/79 Letter to 3M on Bubblin; Rhoad.c; 

5!. S/03179 Paper CoatinQ !)tlission LlJtoli t.s Hel"":".S 

5:2. 5/04/79 Need for enission Offsets in 1\Jral 03 Non- R'loa<is 

at.tainrtent Areas 

53. 5/16/79 Need for 1\Jral. !Nssion Offset. in ~prCM!d Rhoa~s 

State Plans 

54. S/lB/79 IJ9\plt!"'ent.ation of Rfi> Requira.nts Ra~r 

!5. S/21/79 Ik'aft. Lan;UA~e - Pre.bles for SIP Prt:p:)Sals Rhoads 

and Approvals 

Sfi. S/24/79 ENaluat.ion of RAC'l' for an Autawcbile Assen.ioly Rhoat1s P.r~ Coating Operation 

57. 5/25179 9.1..,tnission of State Air Pemits as SIP ~visions R."loa.:!s 

sa. 6/04/79 Air OJali ty: Clarification of Agency Policy 44 FR 3204.2 

Concernin.; 02one SIP Revisions and Sol vent 

Reac:t.ivi ties 

59. 6/15179 Baseline Transfer Efficiency for Spray App;Lica- \·lalsn 

tion c::t W.ter-t:crne Auta10tive Coatings 

60. 6/20/79 f't:)difications to Recorutendations for Solve1,t Rho~s 

Metal Cleaning 

61. 7/03/79 I Apprcpriate Transfer Efficiency for -water.::crne Rl')oads 

Equivalence• 

62. B/17!79 ENaluation of 10,000 gals/month throughout Rhoads 

Exerptions for Petrole\11'1 P'arketin; CP!ratic::ns 

-- 63. B/17/79 S\ ~nstration Rhoads 

-

-""<-
68. 

69. 

70. 

n. 

73. 

i '· 

75. 

76. 

77. 

iS. 

i9. 

so. 

Sl. 

82. 

83. 

84. 

ll/15,1'79 

l2/l2/i9 

12/21/79 

1/03/80 

l/28/80 

3/20/80 

4/18/80 

4/2S/8U 

4/30/80 

S/OS/80 

S/16/80 

6/16/80 

7/02/89 

i/Oi/80 

7/18/80 

7/21/80 

7/22/80 

Regulations 

\tJC Test Methods of Prec:edures 

Exemptions for Degreasers 

\OC ·~.;ulat.ions Issues 

\OC ~lations Issues 

State and Regional Agencies Continue to Make 

Sericus Errors in Calculatin; E:quivalenee· with 

t.he RACI' ~CC'Vn!ndations for SUrface Coat.ing 

Rhoads 

Helms 

New f\Jgit.ive Hydrocarbons Dnissions Fac:tc1rs for Rhoads 

Petrolel.ll'l Refineries ard Petrod'lertlical Plants 

A;:lplic:ability of VU: E)ftissiorv; G.Jide1ines•: 

General Motors Cor~=Qration, N:::lnh Tarrytc:JWn 

AsSO"\bly Plant 

Giacc:one 

CaTiplianc:e rchedules for tOol Solvent Ted'1nolc;y Rhoaes 

Pro;raJtS of the Graphic Art.s C1C Cate;or:r• 

Letter to N.Y. tl€C, Phatl"'\aceutical CI'Ci 

Procedure to CalOJlate [Qui valency with t:.he C'I'G Rhoads 

Recommendations for Surface Costing 

Solvent Reactivities 

Gas::»line Tank Truck ~ations 

Exenption for Cold Cleaner Dagreasers 

Oete~ination of Capture Efficiency 

Letter to Texas Oil Mari<.C!ter-5 Associati01, 

calOJlation r:% Evaporation Loss frO'\ E:xtt!rnal 

Floating ft:)of Tanks : 

Solvent Reac:tivi ties List Additions 

Rhoads 

PlilliS'$ 

45 FR 48941 
89. 

a 100 'Ibn Source as Applie:S to Q:)ntrols in the 

Gascline Stora;e and Marketin; Olain 

90. 8/22/80 'Ihe Use of Pe:mi t Condition!' to Cafine P:ltten- Rhoac!s 

tial to ~t 

9!. 8/25/80 Fabric Printing Definition Be::::y 

Q":' 8/28/80 Issl.l!s Concernir; vt:C RACI' II Pe-;ula tions Helrs 

--· DevelOi)f'ent 

93. 9/03/80 MiscellaneOJs Metal Part!' and Products en; 

Entission Limits for Cofttin; of Shippin; Pails 

Helms 

and Drums 

H. lO!l7/SO E'.Quivalenc:y Calculations with the en; Reo::rr- Rhoads 

Pendations for Surface Coating 

95. l0/24/80 Set II ~ Regulation ,lpprcwal Hawkins 

96. 10/28/80 Standards of PerfotTnance for ......., Stationary 45 FR 71537 

sources: ~aphic Arts Inc:klstry: Publication 

Roto;ravure Printin;: Prc:posed ~le and Nr:ttiee 

of POOlic Hearing 

97. ll/20/80 ~le of Irnprcwed Transfer E:f ficienc:y in D!!m!On- R."'loads 

stratin~ ~j)liance with the C"''G Fecarm!nc!ations 

for 9Jrf ace Coating 

98. ll/20/80 ~prc::priate Transfer Efficiencies for Me~ll ~ 

F\zrni ture and large .tppliance Coatin; 

99. ll/20/80 O:r'llpli ance with '.U: ani ssion Limitations 1:or HMI!dns 

Can Coating Operations 

100. 1.1/25/80 ApprC7olal am Pranu19!1tion c1 ImplementatiC)n 

Plans: Revisa:1 taat11ine for S&JtrtU.ssicn of va: 

.CS FR 78121 

RACI' Pegulations for Set II Cl"G 

101. ll/28/80 Apprcpriate Transfer :Efficiencies for Metl!tl 

Furniture and large Appliance c:oatin; 

Helms 

- -~:..:,- 102. 12/0l/80 ~vised Seasonal Aftert:llrner Policy Bar:er 
lOi. 12/03/80 Canpliance with U.X:: !mission Limitations for Hawkins 

can Coating Operaticns 

lOB. 12/24/80 RACI'/t.AER Dttetminations for Casket Coate:::s Hew 

109. 12/30/80 New Nonattai~nt Designations Rhoads 

llO. l/16/Bl Model Index for Ozone SIPs Cal:a;ni 

lll. l/22/81 SIPs, Appr~al of 82 Ozone Plan for Exten:sion 46 F~ il82 

Areas Final Policy 

112. 1/28/81 letter to ~oehler Concemin; Coati~ 

Specifications 

Barber 

113. l/28/81 Federal Paint Specifications Vis-A-Vis ~# Rarl:ler 

114. 2/03/81 Part D Conditional Apprc:wa1s - PrioritiziJ"Q Helms 

Conditions 

115. 2/06/81 Stonr;e Tank Vap!)r Balance Requir..nts a1: Tyler Synthesized Fhar'l'\!ceutic:a1 Products M!lrufclc:t.\Jre 

Facilities 

116. 3/13/81 Applicability of Fuel Storage ~ations to 

JP-4 Jet F\Jel 

'Iuerk 

117. 3/24/81 Test Meth::>ds for the Set I ard Set II Cl'G '!\Jerk Source Categories 

llB. 4/03/81 Clarification af vue ""Test Method· ~in~ments '!\Jerk 

119. 4/06/81 \OC Test Methods or Procedures for Gro.Jp J: and ~OJP II C'IG5 '!\Jerk 

120. 4/17/81 In tarnal Surf ace CoatiJ'Q &Jbble for Rhode Island Willi al'l\.5 

121. 4/23/81 Criteria for ~ewin; State VUC !Uhhle '1\Jert Regulations 

122. 4/24/81 Letter to Mass;crt on· Jet Fuel Burr - +:<.. 123. 4/29/Bl NSPS, Petroleutt~ Liquid Stora;e ~ssel5 - 46 FR 23984 Equivalency Deterndnation 
Related to RAC Beyond the va: ClGs Hel:ts 

129. 8/07/81 \oerkin; Gra.:p Meetin; - Review of lll(d) Cuide- Goc:::ldwi n 

lines to Control lrichloroethylene, Perchloroet~-

lene, lll Trichlorc:at.hane Methyl Olloride and 

Trichlorotri-flouroethane from Existing ~ganic 

Solvent Cleaners 

130. 8/ll/81 Aerosol can Mcuntin; OJp Sealant CO'n;:ounds Hel-ns 

131. 8/14/81 A.?plicabili ty of the f'4iscellaneOJs Metal P"~s He .!.:Its 

C'l'G to the Coating of Electrarctive Parts 

132. 9/ll/81 Review of PA CrOJp II ~C ~ations Pol;lase~•i~li~s 

133. 9/22/Sl SUrtmaey of Gra.:p I and II \U: RACI' Regulations Nicholson 

134. 9/22/81 Review of Final Gra.:p II \OC ~lations for Pol;lase/Willi~s 

Massachusetts 

135. 9/24/81 ~ry af Gra.:p I \t.JC Rl!gulatiors ~ lli lJI"\5 

136. 10/20/81 Catlpliance Schedules for Auto As58"1\bly 46 FR 51366 

Paint Shc:ps 

137. 10/26/81 \U: ~;uh tions for the 19 82 SIP Helr.s 

138. ll/04/81 Status of State Action on Gl:a.:p III and Po1c;lase Be~nd Source Categories 

139. ll/06/81 Policy on the Use of c:.ondi tional Ap~CMlls Pennett 

( traft) 

140. ll/09/81, New Prccedures for Review of State Implement-a- Bennett 

tion Plans 

l4l. ll/30/81 Review of Plan ~visions by the Office of Bennett 

Managel"ent and !U:!get 

142. 12/ll/81 Policy on the Use of ~Conditional Ap~ovals; Bennett -

- 143. 12/14/81 ~ry of TaM 'l'r\Jek Certification Tests Polglase 

-~- 144. 12/14/81 Letter to George Payne on Can Manufaeturir~ P.ar!::er 
148. 3/19/82 San Francisco Nonattail"'""!nt Plan 47 FR ll866 

149. 3/25/82 Clean Air Act Jtestric:tion Applyin; to SIP PI! r:y-rx::a::: 

~isions D.Je 7/l/82 

150. 4/08/82 EPA !ttissia'\5 Tra:UI"k:; Policy Spirlk 

151. 4/19/82 ~ from Rakeries Car!:l 

152. 6/18/82 Prime Coatin; at Chrysler Assa"\t)ly Plant "''tler 

153. B1211a2 ~uivalency wi t.h the Perdlloroethylene Ocy Hew 

Cleaning CTG·RAcr Recommendations 

15.;. 9/07/82 Clarificatic::n of Me!1IO tated May 6, 1981 'l'ruck Helms 

Certification Program 

155. 9/28/82 ~1ic:y on Excess &rdssions Illrin; Start"'l.a·J•, Bennett 

R'lutdown, Maintenal'\c~, and Malf~ct.ions 

156. ll/Ol/82 Errata Sheet for Petroleurt~ Dry Cleaners Fa:::ner 

157. l/17/83 Alloeb1e 'l'ank l'ruc:k teminal Emission Lind ts Pol; lase 

158. 3/04/83 Review of Illinois Grcup II ~ Rules \4lli~/?ol;lase 

159. 4/04/83 Draft RACI' t:eterminations Wil1iC!I'ftS 

160. 4/lS/83 Reynolds "'etals - vtX: 9Jbhle with Lon;-'Ile:cn HelMs Errtis~ions Averaging 

161. 4/21/83 Avengin:J 'l'ilne - ~ El::;uivalence 

Ccmpliance Calculations 

Pol;lase 

162. 5/10/83 Q:-aphic Arts - 100 'l'PY ibtentia1 !:)(et'lpti~:)n Pol;lase 

163. S/17/83 QJidance fer Non-C:'I'G RACr t:eteJ:minations Hel:ns 

164. 6/03/83 Boc:K Cover Coating Pol; lase 

165. 6/06/83 'l'ank Truck Ka tch Covers Calcagni - ·f<.-...:. - 166 6/28/83 Letter to tbw Olt!r.\ical on !:)(empt Sol-uentls Helms 
173. 10/24/83 

174. 10/31/83 

l 75. 12/05/83 

! i6. 

li7. 

178. 

179. 

180. 

181. 

182. 

183. 

18~. 

leS. 

l86. 

187. 

1/20/84 

l/27/84 

2/29/84 

3/06/84 

3/08/84 

3/15/84 

4/16/84 

517/84 

5/7/S4 

5/21/84 

6/19/84 

6/25/84 

Avera;in; 'I'iJnes for Canpliance with \tlC 'IYler 

emission Lw ts 

Meetin; ~;:crt on torrr'I'e=n Averain; for ,.U: Fblc;;lase 

Sources 

Avera;il"\1 'I'i.rtes for ~liance with \tJC E)o,ission O'Connc: 

Li~its--SIP Revision Policy 

Violations of Record Ker,:lin; Pra..oisions il~ 

~~oved SIPs 

Draft F-tx:o Re;:crt for 9Jrface Coating 

Calculations 

vue EQuivalency Calculations - Clarification 

of Require-rents 

Letter to Lillquist on Flexible Packagin; 

Reynolds and \oestvaco Plant Prc::posed ~e SIP Revisions 

Letter on vue ext end c::cmpli ance dates 

'Toj)c:oatinQ and Printy of Urethane Fabric 

and Sheets 

Exclusion of Vinyl Plasti~l frcm 

va: canpliance Calculations 

ConfitJnation that vue Regulations 

are required for C1C III 

Re;ional survey - ~ EQuivalency 

Calculations 

ConfiJ:Ntion of tefinition of 100 TPY 

!iource 

sso 

Fblc;lase 

'JYler 

Cannon 

Hellns 

Rothblatt 

Helms 

"IYler 

Pole; lase 
192. 9/ll/84 Meehods to establish daily violations fran Ber::y 

annual 'Ill C u..;e data 

193. 9/14/84 \llC test ~~~ethods or ~ocedures fer Gra1p I~, 'IYler 

II, and III CTGs 

194. ll/07/84 Connecticut \OC issues "'-:rphy 

195. 12/06/134 Comments on vee clarification ~ Ha;; 

196. 12/21/84 Connecticut \lUC issues Helms 

197. l/09/85 Clarification of C'Iti RJICr ~c::ararend.ation fc~r 'IY1er 

High-I»nsi ty Pol~thylene, polyprcpylene, · 

and polystyrene 

198. 2/04/85 Stack height in facilities usin; air stripi)in; Cannon 

for groundwater cleaning 

199. 2/ll/85 Pes;::onse c:oncernin; va: clarification 1'N!mC 'I'jler 

200. 4/02/85 ~ission 1imi ts for c::r:liltin; cf shippin; pails Hel.ns 

and d runs 

201. 4/23/85 Consic1eration cf Organi!IIOls in \1tJC Canplia.nce 8nison 

Calculations 

202. 4/23/85 Printin; on UnsupJ;Ortec1 Vinyl Film Q:)ve rec1 ~ler 

hyC'l'G 

203. S/20/85 Pesul t s cf May 3 \OC Meetin; 

(tram 19 VC: Issue Jesolution Process) 

204. 7/22/85 ( Gr' aphic Arts - ltd d-On Control 5ystans tal ton 

205. 8/15/85 Fabric Coadng - Dip and Impregnator Coati.n; CNTpler 

'206. 8/27/85 Classification of Benzene as a "WC 'tYler 

207. 8/29/85 Paper Coat in; RACl' te tetll'\i nation .:bhnson 

, 208. 12/16/85 Baseline Ti.!'le Period for \tJC Transfer E:ff].cien- Hel:ns 

-""'=:.. ---- r::y credits 

Guidelines - Volatile Organic carpa.md 

Sa:'ces 

227. 7/21/87 Definition of Volatile Organic Ccmpounds Hel.ms 

(VOC's) 

2:::9. 9/09/97 Alternative C~liance for Graphic ~.s '!'.;le:-

RAC"I' 

2:9. ·. 11/04/87 Additional Information Concernin; E:missi1::>n Hel.-:s 

Cwt-of! - 3 lbs/hr, 15 lt&/day 

-· 
2) S~J:-face Coating of Metal 

Coils 

3) SOJrface Coating of Fabrics 4/13/79 Helms 

8/04/80 Helms 

8/25/80 Berry 

12/02/80 R.'"loads 

8/05/85 Cr:Jmple:-

4)·surface Coating of Paper 11/09/78 Rhoads 

P:-ocucts 5/13/79 Helms 

8/04/80 Helms 

8/29/85 Johnson 

5) Su:-face Coating of Auto- 10/06/78 Rhoads 

mobiles ll/16/78 Barber 

5/24/79 Rhoads 

4/18/80 Giaccone 

7/18/80 Giaccone 

7/31/80 Rhoads 

10/20/81 46 FR 51386 

6/18/82 Tyler 

6) 5.::-face Coating of Metal ll/20/80 Rhoads 

F~.:rni ture ll/28/80 Helms 

7) S~Jrface Coating of Magnet 

Wire 

8) S~J:-face Coating of Large 11/20/80 Rhoads 

Ap;:>liances ll/28/80 Helms 

9 ) Gasoline 'I'ermi nals 8/08/80 Helms 

' 8/22/80 Rhoads 

9/14/83 Polglase 

10) Gasoline Bulk Plants 9/14/83 Polglase 

11) Stage I Vapor Recovery 7/21/81 Helms 

Roof 'I'anks 

- -~..:. 
15) Solvent Metal Degreasing 

l6) s~r:ace Coating of Hiscel- laneo~s Metal Parts and 

Products 

l7) Flatwood Paneling 

18) Pharmaceutical 

l9) Pneumatic R~bber Tire 

20) Vegeta~le Oil 

21) Graphic Arts 

22) Dr"J Cleaning 

23) Leaks at Petroleum 

Refineries 

9/07/78 

12/12/79 

7/02/80 

8/04/80 

9/03/80 

l/28/81 

8/14/81 

2/09/82 

2/12/82 

4/02/85 

4/30/80 

8/04/80 

2/06/81 

3/13/81 

4/25/80 

8/04/80 

10/28/80 

5/10/83 

7/22/85 

9/09/87 

8/04/80 

8/07/81 

8/27/82 

ll/01/82 

10/24/83 

12/02/80 

Rhoads 

Rhoads 

Rhoads 

Rel:ns 

Helms 

Bar~er 

Helms 

Helms 

Helms 

Helms 

Giaccone 

Helms 

Tyler 

Tuerk 

Rhoads 

rtelms 

Federal Registe:-

Polglase 

Dalton 

Tyler 

Helms 

Helms 

Helms 

Farmer 

Federal Register 

Helms 
:!6) Bw~!:lling 

27) Solids Applied/Transfer 

Efficiency 

7/24/81 

12/14/81 

9/07/82 

6/06/83 

9/19/83 

5/01/79 

7/15/79 

4/17/81 

4/29/81 

4/08/82 

4/15/83 

7/05/83 

10/12/83 

10/31/83 

12/05/83 

1/20/84 

3/09/84 

1/22/86 

2/28/86 

6/15/79 

7/03/79 

1/28/80 

5/05/80 

8/04/80 

10/17/80 

ll/20/80 

12/02/80 

2/26/81 

3/04/83 

6/29/83 

2/29/84 

3/06/84 

12/16/85 

4/ll/86 

Nicholson 

Polglase 

Helms 

r:alcagni 

McLa~ghlin 

Rhoads 

Walsh 

Williams 

'I'i.2erk 

Spink. 

Helms 

Helms 

Tyler 

Tyler 

Polglase 

O'Connor 

Tyler 

Price (19 VOC !sswesl 

Emison (19 VOC :ss ... es 

Walsh 

Rhoads 

Salman 

Rhoads 

Relms 

Rhoads 

Rhoads 

Re1ms 

Salman 

Wi1liams/Polglase 

Helms 

Polglase 

Tyler 

Helms 

Emison (19 VOC :ss~es· 
29) Capture Efficiency 

30) '!'est Methods 

31) Beyond Set I and II CTG 

32) lll(d) 

33) Definition of VOC 

34) RFP 

35) 5\ R~,;le 

36) Long T~rm Averaging 

37) Jet Fuel 

3e) nil~tion Solvents 

l0/24/83 

5/01/86 

5/22/86 

9/22/86 

7/07/83 

11/15/79 

3/24/81 

4/03/81 

4/06/81 

~/11/86 1/11/t¥ 

7/24/81 

11/04/81 

12/30/81 

8/2~/84 

l/31/86 

6/25/87 

ll/4/87 

8/07/81 

10/26/78 

8/27/85 

4/17/87 

7/21/87 

12/21/78 

8/17/79 

10/31/83 

12/05/83 

l/20/84 

3/06/84 

3/13/81 

4/21/81 

:4/24/81 

10/20/83 

10/30/86 

Federal Re;iste:-

Tyler 

Tyler 

Hathaway 

Berry 

Rhoads 

T1.1er1< 

Tuerk 

T1.1erk 

Emison (19 VOC :ss~es 

Tyle.r 

Helms 

Polglase 

Helms 

Rasnic (19 VOC Iss~es 

. SSCD (19 VOC Isswes) 

Helms 

Helms 

Goodwin 

Helms 

Tyler 

Helms 

Helms 

James 

Rhoads 

Tyler 

Polglase 

O'Connor 

Tyler 

Tuerk 

Polglase 

Burr 

Berry 

Helms 
40) Cl'G III 

S/21/84 

41) Afterburners 12/01/80 

2/28/86 

42) Non-C!G Bakeries 

431 Hi;h ~n~ity Polyethylene, .. Polypro;>ylene, and Polystyrene 

44) Surface Coat in; of Vinylcoaterl Fa~ric or Vinyl 

Sheets 

45) Criteria for Plan Revisions 

for Nonattainment Areas 

46) Low Solvent Technology 

47) Com;>liance Date Extension 

48) General vue Issues 

49) Recordkee~inc;/ 

Re&:lOrtinc; 

50) Class Al, A2, and. 

B vue sources 

Sl) Baselin• Year for VOC 

Percent -E~ission Reductions 

as per State SIP Regulations 

4/19/82 

l/09/8 6 

4/23/8 6 

S/19/78 

8/07/86 

ll/21/86 

3/16/87 

8/07/86 

S/20/85 

l/17/86 

4/11/8 6 

1/31/86 

2/28/86 

'Tyler 

Barber 

Emison ( 19 VOC :ss",;es) 1 

Carb 

Tyler 

Crumpler 

43 FR 21673 

Potter 

Rasnic/Alushin 

Hitte 

Potter 

SSCD (19 VOC Issues) 

Price (lY voc Issues) 

Emison (19 VOC !ssues~ 

SSCO (19 VOC Issues) 

Emison (19 VOC !SS',;esl 
1-

, 

-- \- ! -

54) Clean up Solvents 10/30/86 

Helms 
ATTACHMENT 6 

SL~IES OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG'S) 
NUI'!SER OF AFrtc~tO 

F'AC:t.!'T1ES 

AccOI"dlftCJ to tilt lul"tlu of Census. tl

ltl

! ,...,., 1,92

5 tt-1na;$ 

 

1972. C~o~rl"ent tstllllf.tS 11"1 IOOUt 1,600 f.lr"'lllfti)S ftlf.lii)IIWid!. 

lhtl'lour. viOO" l"tCOvtry systtfiiS, YOC 1!1111UlonS can range fi"''ll' :.: :: 

1.4 g/1,000 llttrs of ti'II"Ougnout (5 to 12 1b/1,000 g1ll. ~o,. a :y:~:!· 

s1ze f1c1l1ty l'ltv1n9 1 tl'lrougnout of 950,00: 11ttl"/d1Y (25o,::o ;•:;:ay 

VOC IM1SS1011S 11"1 tStlmtttd to bt 200 ~/yr (220 tOn/yl"), 

Fo,. 111 uncont!"Ollea flclllty wltl'l fi•ed f'OOf ttnks, 1 133.~00 :,~e~ 

/d1y (35,00~ gll/dly) 1111nt would I"ISult ;n VOC .-;sslon of 10: :~"'!"· 

Fo,- 1n unconti"Olled ftc111ty wltl'l floeting roof ttnks, 1 454,00C 11te~/ 

dly (120,000.911/dly) fecility would re$Wlt tn YOC emissions of 

100 f.OII/yr. 

Tilt recon.nded tiiUSion lt•it ts 80 111J/11ter (O.~i7 1b/1,000 911 l 

of ,asoline 1oldecS. Tins h•tt ts basH on su~~~~ergeo fill ana v1oo,. 

recovery/conti"Ol systeft!S. No leaks tn tilt vaoor collec:tion system 

during ooer1t1on ts 1 requi~t. 

A 1111111111111 conti"Ol of 87 oercent ts uoecttd for tr•e lotdlng 

facil tty. 

BASIS: 250,000 911/day f1e1l ;ty witll ac:we veoot• control syst~s. 

~o; ttl cost: 

Annu• 1 ; ztd cost : Cost etfecttveness: 

1 

suo.ooo - $195,000 

s zo.ooo - s 30,000 

S1ZO • $180 11er ton vee 
I 

I 

I 

I 

: 

; 

I 

I 

I ' 

I 

AFt:':~ED 8u~e1u of Census. Cu~,..nt tst1•tts a" aoout 1l! ,OCC tlu I k FACI~!TitS gasoline olants ftlt1onw•ae. 

vo: ,. Est, .. teo annual em1ssions .,., 150,000 M;/Y" 116~.~CC ~=~ty~. 

EP'ISSI~S [1(, 15) wft1C:II r'eDP'fStnt atxlut 0.6 llt~ent of tSt'lllllteo VCC ~-.o~;~, tm1SS10nS ftlt1011WI0t. 

YOC I A facH1ty wHII tllf'H Storage tankS wouiG IUIVf VOC ttrtSS1011S £~:SSIOt\ aooro111111t1ng 4.4 tg/Oay (20 1b/day) olus a "1"9t' of O.Z :c ~-:: ;/ u~.~: I , 000 11 ttP"S tll,.ouqnout ( 2. 0 to 25. 0 1 b/1 , 000 gal) . Fo,. a :yc ·:a: PER size fac:11ity 11av1119 1 tllrouqnout of 18,900 liter·toay (S,COO ;al; FACli.ITY day) IYtr'lgt VOC tm1SS1011S are tSt1Nted tO De l!i l'lq/yP' (17 tOIIIf";. 

100 TOr./YR 

I SOURCE None. 

SIZE 

EI!1SS 10n 1 i•1ts recon.ntSetS in teNS of eouietN~~t soectfic:at1on 

CTG altt"'lt1ves: 

E"lSSION 1. Su0..~9td ftll of outgoing tank tructs. LIMIT 2. Altt"'lttve 1 • vaoor balance for incolring tl'lnSfeP'. 

l. A1te"'at1ve Z • vaoo~ balance for outgoing tl'lftSftl". 

voc Em1ssion ••ouc:;ons I Totll Pllnt I ,, TransftM 

•t!ru~ION A1te"'ative 1 

I 

Z2 IJtr'Ciftt 

I ll[ll Z7 oe~ent 

Al ' tl"'ltht Z 5' oe~ent " II'AC::.!TY Ot!r'CI"t ' 

I A 1 te"'at1ve l 77 ~:»e~cent 92 oe~ce"~ i 

BASIS: 4,000 ;alttSay tii1'0UgftDut US1ft9 SU~"9fC fill 

antS 

COSTS 

vaoo,. Dalance for bOtft inconin9 ano out901ng tl'ansfe~s:. 

C.oita1 cost: S,,000 • S10,000 Annu•l izetS cost: s 100- s 1,200 Cc H effect1veness: S9 • S90 Cit" ton VOC 

2 

: 

' 

I 

I 

I 

: 

I 

I 

i 

' 

' 
AI='FtC~!O 

F'AC:L.I~lt:S 

voc ~!SSIO~S 

IU.':'lONiil:lE 

voc 

EMISSIOrl 

RAr•Gt PER 

FACILITY 

100 TOM/YR 

SOURCi 

SIZE 

CTii 

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

YOC REDUC~ION 

PER 

FACILITY 

COSTS• 

Estillllted to De 180,000 ... un guoline sei"V1ce sut1ons 

nationwtoe. The"' 1"' 2CO,OOO otfter gesoltne 01Soens1ng outle!s. 

For transfer of guohne to sti"VtCe sution storege unu, 'IOC 

(14 •c• lfii1SStons estillllted to De COO,OOO ~/yr (CCO,OOC :on/yrl ' .•• 

wntcn reoresents eoout 1.5 percent of esti .. tad VOC em1SS1ons 

Mt10nwtOe. 

Wttftout •1oor eontrols, YOC emtssions are estlm~ted to De 

l.C lr.g/1,000 hta" (11.5 lb/1,000 911l of tllrougnout. For • t~ical 

f1cility n1Y1n9 1 thraugnout of 151,000 11tertmo (CO,OOC g1l/mo1 vc: 

tm1SS1ons would De 2.5 ~/yr (2.8 ton/yr) for Stlge I. 

For 1ft UftCOntrollld fac111ty, • 2,800.000 liter/me (750,000 

g1l/-a) tnrougftaut results '" YOC .-iss1ons of 100 ton/yr. v~~ 

fe• ser•ict Stlt1ons will n1Y1 tft1s s1ze througftout. The eft1SS1ons 

1ncluae Datft St191 I lnd Stage 11 losses. 

E•iss10fl H•its ~nclld 1n ttPWS of ~u1o-ent setecificlttons. , lleca-.noed cantrols are suC.Wf'9ed ffll Of storege tants, ••oor tw1l1nce · Detwet~ tl"\\ct 1nd tani., and 1 lelk '"'" tPVCk encl uoor transfer system .. 

Stlqe r control can Peduce transfer losses by 95• Dtrctnt and 

total fact11ty losses by SO percent. 

BASIS: Aoo11cat1on of sua.erged ffll 1nd YIOOr balance !o • Sti"ViCe SUtiOn w1th til"" tlni.S. 

C.oital cost: saoo 

Annul 11zed cost: 

Cost effecti'ftness: (S200l ( 

(S110) "'" ton VOC lJ] 

3 
NUI'!I!EII OF .\F='::c;::o . . ~:.c:urtts 

I 

I 

I 

YOC 

E"!SStOHS 

NAT:OM;;:::lE 

YOC 

-

""'SSION .. 

RANG£ 

P£11 

FACILITY 

I 100 TON/TR 

i 

! 

' 

SuURC£ 

SIZE 

c;G E!'!l~S:ON 

LII'Il~ 

voc 

REOUt;ION 

'~il 

j:'AC:L~TY 

COS!S• 

c:onoens1tt Or

IOr

 to 

y 

Est1 .. ttd tnnutl e~~~issions '" 560,000 l'rg/yr" (616,0CIO ton/yr) wnter "'!:·"!~!·: 

100wt %.1 oerctnt of the tStl .. ted YOC eDISSions ftltionwtdt. EmtsStons :• ;:;: •·:· 

fued-rcof UnitS.,.. 4.7 t1111es that ff'CIII uut'inc; flott1r1g I"''of unr.s, •::.,: .. ;· :-~ 

tot1l c:aotclty of fi•eo~oof tanll storaqe is less. (1 41 

YOC e~~~ission ranges for gasoline Or" crude oil store~tt USUI!I,"~ 5 t: 2': :.·"-

oveM Otr' yw1r 1nd I true viOOr' O"U"" of 1J.8 to 69 lth (2.0 t: 1C :IS11 •. 

s z e~ s • I 1 1 I M t d t w m 

CiOICity (gil) •zo 1 toJ 2.J I 10° 6.3 , 1 c= 

01111ef1S lOftS 

d'i ... I llt. (ft) sa 1 3D 100 I 10 1 so J: •e 

YOC £•1SS10ns .. 

G.saline (!'11)/yr") 12 - 113 52 - 535 123 - 1 .J! J 

(ton/yr~ 13 • 125 57 - 590 135 - 1,190 

Crude Oil (Mg/yr 7 • 65 28 • 311 68 - 796 

(t11n/yr) 8 • 72 30 • 3'0 75 - 875 

V1r"i1DI~ Cleotnding on .. ny o.r ... te~ tncl11dtnq tht tyoe and v1oo~ ~ressure 

t~e oet!"''le11m ltqyiCI storwd, SCfteGIII t Of Unll f;J 11 ft9 IIICI tii'Dty1 ng, InC! :~e 

geogreon1c locat1on of ttnk. AS SIIOIIft IIIOYe I •eli.,_ Sil~t tlntl "'"tUlly uc:e~ 

100 ton/yr tiii1SS\OftS of YOC. 

~~ 

[1111 ss 10n 1i111i ts "'a..noed 1n tef'IIIS of eouio•nt Slle~i fic:At1 ens: : n~ :a~~!:·:~ 

of inttr"ntl f1ott1ng I"''OfS or llter"ntt1•e eawtvtlent c:an1~rol. Types of &i:e~a:~•t 

~=nti"' 1s a" not soeci fitd tn tht CTG cSOC\IIIItftt. 

YOC tiii1SSion ...ou~t1on of go. oer~ent can t1e acn1ev•td l:ly insulht;on ,'!' 

lfttel"ftll notting I"''OfS. 

8AS:S: 55,000 I:IDl (2,310,000 gtl) •cs111111 sue tank wttn g~sol1ne o .. :-~~e :··, 

w1th true .v•oor o"ssur"t r"anqe of lo& to 69 tPa (% to 10 ;)S11) 11111 5 :o :;.~rno•e .. s oer JIWI". 

C.o,ul cast: 

Annutl1ZeCI cost: 

Cost effectiveness: 

• (S•) in01C:Ites SIV1119S 

Sll.OOO 

SC70.000l to 2,100 

(S12Jl • S7J oer ton YOC 

4 
1 VQC ' EMtssro,.s 1 H&.~:on.::r 

I 

voc 

E!I'!!SSIOt\ 

IA,_\a£ 

PEil 

F'AClL:TY 

TN CTG orov1aes no tltntlt1ons. 

t Est,.,ted 1nnu1l n1t1on.'lt eM1SS1ons f~ v1cuur. oroauc,n; sr~:e~s 

~VPS), .. st .. Utr StOIP'itOP'S (1.:5), 1n0 l:lroCIU unit tul'ftiP'OunCS (~·~-: 

1.,., 7]0,00~ "qlyr (80:,000 ton/~1') wn1c~ reo,.esent IDOUt 2.7 ~·:t"" ,~ 1Ut1mlteo VQC tr.1U10ftS ftlt10no;tQe. (14j 

I The eSt1mattd 1veP'191 annuli VOC ~1sstons fror. affe~~~~ fac~l·:·es tit 1 oet,.oleum refinery,,., Z,SiO Mg (2,3!0 ton). Em1SS10n fac::,.s wse~ 

lfOI' eSt1mit1ng uncontrolled, reactive VQC em1SSiOnS ll'e: 

I 

1. 'IPS • 1•5 k9/l05m~ ( 50 lb/10~ btll) ,..fine,.,. tnrou;nout. 

b. WS • 570 k9/10~m3 (%00 lb/1~~ bOll P"tfinery tnrougnout. 

c. PUT· 860 k9/lO • (301 lb/Ta- bb1) ref1ne"Y tnrougnout. 

The following annuli refirte"Y tftr"'UCJI\Outs will ,..suit in 100 tonty,. 

1

100 TON/YR uncontralled vee .-tss1ons f~ eacn affected facility tyoe: 

SOURCE 6 , 6 

l SIZE a. VPS - 24.6 I 105111'" (3.9 I 106 btll). 

I 

b. W5 • 6.J I JQ6

mJ (1.0 I 106 1:101). _ _,;..._ c. ______ PUT • 4.2 1 10 .J (0.67a 10 bbl). _ ~G 

E~'t~s:oN 

LIMY~ 

voc RE:lUC~lON 

cos~s· 

~1ss1on lt•1ts rec~oea in te~ of toulOmeftt soec1ficat1ons: 

1. VPS • inc;nera~ion of VOC .-;ss;ons f~ conoense,.s. 

1:1. WS • COvtP'inq StDIP'ItOf' fof'etllyS. 

c. PUT • ca.oust1on of VIOOP' .-nted f~ vessels. 

lmolement1nq t~t rec~notd controls c1n ,..duct voc .. ,ss1ons ~y: 

1. VPS - 100 oercent. 

D. WS • 95 l:lel'cent. 

c. PUT • 98 oei"Cent. 

9AS!S; A 15,900 m3101y (Z,SOO ool/dly) l'efint~y ws1n9 :~e : "'COillnenoed control tou1oment. 

t~otUl cost Sl,OOO: 

Annu1l1zed cost Sl,OOO: 

Cost effectiveness S/ton 

• ( $•) 1n01CiteS SIVlngs 

5 

24 • 52 

( 95) • ( 89, 

(104) (96) 

~ Ot .. ~ . .. 

'" 

63 98 

(310) Z5 

' 

\ 901 

u,. • ~s 
·f.C<...:. 

n.c:L.:~IES 

voc 

Ei4 ISSIONS ~:..:. 7 :ca •• ::' 

!voc EMlSSIOt; 

i llANCii: P£R I FAC!L.ITY 

100 TON/YR 

SOURCE SIZE 

CTG 

D'l!SSION 

L.lMlT 

YOC 

AEOUCTI:lN 

PER 

FACILITY 

ccs~s· 

Est, .. tn eM-.. 1 •; ss; ans '" 655 ,000 "'9/ yr ( 721J. 000 ton '1"' i . n, s 

P'tPP'tStnts IOOut Z.C Oef'Ctnt Of tSt1 .. ttd YOC t1111SS101tS net10""'101!. :~:: 

Est1111tt«< YOC tiii1SS10ftS fror. cu~eck upnelt pro•~~o~c::1on ere: 

•· 0.078 kg/kg (ton/ton) ·of slow cure aspnalt. o. O.Z09·kg/kg (ton/ton) of ~~tdtwm cure uPnllt .. C. O.ZOC kg/kg (ton/ton) Of P'I01CI CUP't ISOIIIlt. 

I NOt genef'llly eoolicaole to this souf'Ce category s1nee tne me1n sources of •ns 1ons ,,.. tile P'OICI surlaees .,,,.. tile netnel t 'Is IDP li eel. 

I SY0st1tutt .. ttr and nanvoletilt _,1s1f1tr f~r lletf'Oli'UIII distillate o1e~111g stoct. · 

YOC tll'iss1on P'tdUCt1ons aP't ICIOP'0&1 .. tt1y 100 Pti"Ctnt. 

I 

lAS IS: The •jor cost assoe1etn wi ttl cantf'O 1 o1' YOC , s tne or1 ce Cl1ffertnee oec ... n cutDICk and ..ulsified esonalt. A or,ce di~ftrt"tlti 

of 5 cent/c;ellon Siv1119s to 1 ctnt/c;allon ~:~enel ty res:u 1 ts in • cost ef. 

!feet1vlfttss range of (S7J). S15 per ton YOC. 

6 
-~-

FA::!L!TIE:S 

NUl'!!; OF Ar::::~to 

' rA::L.IiiES 

salYeftt deq~uer, tither IIOiltnq or nanacn11ng. 

· ODet~ tao vaoar dtq~Uti"S Sllllller t111n 1 ,.z of CIOtn ere• •~• ue~:: II f,.OIII tile IOOhCJtlon of ~f,.;qa,.ltiCI Cl'lilie.-s 01: Cll"l:IOn ICISO~~Ie!"~. Canveyol"iZtd dearoeiSti"S Slllllle,. tl'lan Z.O,. Of lrtr/veoor tnte .. 4 ace 

i '" llltiiiDt ,,. • P'IQut P"eNnt for 1 IIIJOP' conti"O 1 eSt• 'ce. I 

I Estillltes of the numae,. of solvent cSeqroeese,.s n1t1onwtae for :~e II )'eiP' 19,. 11"1: 

1. Cola cleenti"S (CC) • l,Z%0,000. 

b. Open too veoo,. cSeq .. eese,.s (OTJ - Zl,OOO. c. Conveyo,.,zeo cSeqi"IIStl"s (COl • 3,700. 

I 

voc l EMISSIONS 

~~:OK•4DE ,.~ich 

Estlllltts of ennual net1onw1Cit e~1ssions .,.,: 

1. CC • 380,000 Mq/yr ('19,000 ton/yr). II. OT • ZOO,OOO J~IY'" (Z%1,000 ton/y,.) c. CD • 100,000 "-J/yl" (110,000 ton/yl"·) r-es»resen t. 100u t 2 • 5 oe.-c111 t. of est 11111 te<S (14: 

VOC emissions net,onwiCit.: 

YOC 

EMlSStON 

ltANGt 1t£R 

FACILITY 

Avel"l9td .-iss1on races Pt~" dtq~IStl": 

•• cc • 0.3 "-J/yl" (0.3 ton/yl"). 

b. OT • 10 "9/Y'" (11 t.on/yl"). c. CD .• %7 "'9/yl" (30 ton/y.-). 

100 TONITR I DIU ind1cau trllt. on an IWI"I91 10 ooen too de"l"tiiii"S o,. 4 con- SOURCE .. SiZE •eyartzed cStq~asers .. , e~it 100 t.on/yl". 

~G 

EM.!:~:ON 

l.ZM!-:' 

voc ~E~UC~:ON 

II£R 

FAC!L!TY 

'COSTS • 

I TM YOC •iss ion t;,.,t ts roec~~~~~~~enaed 1n te-s of eouiOI!Ient soet'-fications end ODII"Itlon o~ctdu.-es. Aeou,,.ea control eou10111ent can ~ 

1

1 

IS SlmDlt IS I -.nually OPII"ItiCI •ani COYIP' 0,. IS C~~les IS l ;arcon •«~sa,.,t1on system dtoena1nq on tl'l~ tyoe, size, end e1e:s1qn of t,e 

I atq~u''"· 

I The ectu•l Dei"Cettt YOC ~auction wn l very cSeoen•~, ng on tne :ont"~' 

, .autament 1nst•llea end the ooe,.at;onel ;~roceduroes folloPea. ~eco~~=­

: eCI cont~ol metl'lodS can rwauce YOC 11111Ss1ons ~y: 

I a. CC - 50 to SJ oer-eent (• ZO oe.-centl. 

D. OT • •s to 60 OII"Cint (; 15 DII"Cint). .c. CD· 25 to 60 oe.-cent (! 10 oe,.eentl. 

7 
AFFtC-:"t~ 

F.\CIL!~:::s: 

Est1111ted to be 46C affected facil it11s n.ationw1oe. 

VOC j EstUIIted annual t1111U10ftS fM)III can coat1nq f~c~1i':1tS I"! Er::ss:or:~ ·Mc;tyr \ lSO.:l~:l ton/vr) wnlcn P'IOI"tstnt aoou': a.: 011"::!,': ot ':!'~! 

N;~:or;.::£' nat,onw,:lt VO(" ,,..,,; 'O"S. r14,1Sj 

voc 

tr.:s; :.:.:. AA'.~£ 

~~; 

;:.::~:':'\' 

10: TQ:;;YR 

sou~:t 

SiZE 

CTG 

~!SSION 

LJM!T 

voc 

AEilUc:'IOr> 

PtA 

FAC!L!TY 

Ty,l;al annual I!I!USIOns frcitr, can C:Oit1nQ lines can "~"'1 • .. :- ·~ ·•; 

I ( ~.: tons i for end seali nq to Zt:C "!; ( Z6C ton) fo,. t.C.·P 1 e:! :lr ::a:· ; in; fo,. a giant averat;e of 310 ~-; (J4C ton:. 

I 

j Typ1cal can cottinq facn ities u ,.eol"tstnted 1n ':!'It l•oo~acn Ol" eacaed 100 TPY VOC _.,ss1ons if uncont~llec. 

·The I"IC~ded VOC e11ss1on li•its are: 1. Sheet COit1nq, t.O•CI11CI eatel"iOI" 0.34 kq/1 (Z.B lb/;al ;• 

b. Two- and tlll"tt•D1ece 1nte,.;o,. 0.51 kq/1 (4.% lb/gal )• c. Two·oiece end eate,.;o,. 0.51 k9/1 (4.2 lb/gal)• 

d. Th.-..·~iiCI SiOe SeiW. 0.66 kg/1 (5.5 lb/g&l)• e. End seal CQIOOund 0.44 kg/1 (l.7 lb/gal)• 

I 

The actwal oe.-cent reouc:ion will va,.,. oeoenoinq on tile solvent 

colltent of tftt ea1st1n9 coat1nqs and the cont,.ol metiiOd selectee. 

lmolementat1on of the l"tc~noed cont~l met11oas can I"ICuc:e vc: ~1s· 

l s 1ons l)y 6., to 100 Clti"Ciftt. 

I

I BAS:S; s.~o SCflll fiC11fty YS1ftCJ tnermal 01" Cltllyt1C: InC~., ... ,. t1on •ltll 111"1~.-y lleat r"ecove.-y. o,. aasorpt1on •It~ ,.ecove~!~ s::•e~: 

c.-edited It fuel v•lue. 

1 c.&PJTAL COST: S12S,OOO • ~162.:l00 A~::::;:.(. ; Z£0 C~ST : S42 :J~O • S 71 • 000 

cos-: EF'~EC'rJVENESS: S1l5 • S7n6 o)t!P' ton 't'OC 

8 
-~. 

·;;:::: . Est111aUG 1nnu1l lllliSS\ons fM)III ~011 c:o1t1ng facilttas lr'! ;:.::: E":~s=~~;~ .f'!;;y,. (lJ,::oo tor\'Yr:, wtncn r-ep,.esent aoou: 0.1 oercl!flt of tl"• 

N'-~ ;Qr,. o :l£ , lftattG n1 t tonw lOt VOC fill\ S$1 onS. [ 14 ,15) 

!~: .. 

ve;: .,·~·"'' . -·."". AA:.~~ P£il 

r::.::1.:r' 

I 

: Aver'IOI enn~o~1l VOC llllis$\On fOI' i typical faC111t;,- IS !5';1::" .. ';!: 

! to be 180 ~; (ZOu toni. I 

I 

!t IS tStl~ .. ttO tnat 2 I 10m (2 I 10 ft ) Of C:tl COlt!:~: •. : 100 TOI\/TP I 6 2 g 2 

S~¥~~£ result in I POttntlll e111SS10n of 100 tons of VOC. 

C~G 

D'!ISSlOH 

LIMIT 

voc 

•EDUCTION 

P£il 

FAC:LITY 

c:s~s 

I The recommenoea VOC .. 1ss1on 11a1t is 0.31 kg per liter of colttng 

111n1.1s water (2.6 lb/g1l), 

I The actual percent ~uction will vary depending on tne solvent 

content of tne e:a1st1119 cotttnCJS tn4 tne control lltttnoo sel~:ec:. ·t!IICit· 

l

ftlnt&tion of tne rec~noeo control attnoos ~n ,.eouce vee tm1SS1ons ~Y 

70 to 98 11ercent. · 

I BASIS; ~Overy. 

1 C.o1t1l cost: 

I Annualized cost: Cost effectiveftess: 

9 

= S170,000 ~ s 70,00:l 

SSl • S9~ oe,. ton VOC 
1 .r ·------- • :.~, :. ... 

1 ,:.:.::1.:~:ts· 

vo;: 

I I t"'··~·.,··· .• ~ ... 'iJ .. ~ 

1 ,.;.":":o~.::JE 

I 

I 

YOC 

EY.:: s~:ot.. 

AAt.wE PE~ 

FAClL.ITl 

! 100 TOII/YR 

' SOUDCt 

1 s:u 

~G 

EMISSION 

L.!MIT 

YOC 

ll£:lUCTIOH P~ll 

F:.,::_:~Y 

c:sn 

; [s:,na:.ec annwal tll'iSSIOn ff'OfP faOI"lC C:llt11"i ODtr"ltlO~S ar~ ':: .::: 

rM;'vr (ll:.:::oc t:~nl~r\. [15) !he ~1nyl """'~":. c~ tnt •a:~~c ~~=-~~- 1 I , .. ,:.s ae~o.-: J~.o~: l'ic;.'Y" i:O,O')') ton/y,.l. VI)C ,,.Or" fat-"'' c:~c!:·•,c- "'!:· I ~"tS.nts aoo•1t :.t. O!~"~tnt o' tilt Uti~qttd VOC er:Hslons na<:lon.::e. 

I Any bllt tile saallest fabric coat1n9 fac111t1es Sllould e~ceec: tm1S· 

!s'ons of lOW ton11r of VOC. 

Ttle reconwt~oed voc lll'i ss; on 11•1 u are : 

a. Fabr"iC coat1ng O.lS k9 per liter of coating minus •ate,. 

(Z. 9 lbtgal). 

b. vtnyl coating o.•s kg per ltter of coating m1nus •ate,. 

(3.8 lb/gal ). 

I Tile act.,.l perocent ,..auction w1ll v1ry oeoeno1n9 on the solve~: 

'

content of tne 1a15t1n9 coat1ngs and tile control ~tnod seiec:ec:. 

lmaltmentJt10n Of tfte r'IC:OmmtftOIO control mtthOOS CJn r"tCiuCe YOC ~~S· 

:s1ons Dy ao to 100 oerocent. 

BAS:S. 15,000 SC~III fJC111ty 1111n9 inc1ne~1t10n •1tl'l PP''I!""'":t "U'! 

I f'tCOvtr"y or IOSOr'Dt10n •1tft ~"ICOVer'eCI solvent CP'eOiteC It fuei va:~e. 

\ Cao1u1 cost: S1SO.OOO - S3ZO,OOC 

Annua11zec cost: S OC,OOO- S 75,000 

Cos: effect! veness: '14 • ~J9 oe" t::ln ·m:: 

10 
i [St11111ttC annual t1111SS1ons II'! lZC,OOO P'!fJ/y~ (JSC,OOC' ::mr;n·.. :• vc: i tiltS IIIIOuflt, :11e lllnufactul't of CJf"tSS.u~t sensltlvt uoes •ne i•ot"s ~s £":!!::~;~: tst1Nte: to .,.,t 26~,000 "';!y,. (290,000 ton/y~). [1111SS10I'S '"0~ ~!'It 

~7:0to.:;j£ I CCI!lftC of ~lOt~ PI'OduC:ts l'tOI'!Stnt IOOUt 1.2 Qei'Citnt Of ftlt10ftw1C! JC: 

j ttr.:4S1~ns. [I•] 

voc I Emiss1ons fi'OIII tyoical PlOt!" coat1nq I ines ca•, v1ry f,.~ ZJ ~o 

E~tSSION 450 kq/111' (50 to 1,000 ltl/llf"). A plant 1111 111ve I to 20 c:oa:1nq ~1nes. 

UNGE P£;< ' It tS eSt11111ttC tlllt tilt lftnual avtl'lqt VOC ti11U11~ft fi'OIII ::IIOt~ eoatln~ 

FlCli.ITY I plants tS 1,480 Mg (1,630 ton). 

SOURC.. llsed on tilt diU 91vtn, a o1ant wttll one hf"•;t 11ne Of' t1100 1 00 iON/YR I . SIZE" 511111 lines can esceed 100 ton/yf" of voc •as1ons .. 

E

M'SSION The l'tcommendtd VOC emission 11•1t Is 0.35 kg per liter r:TG I '' Of C:Oat1n" 111ftUS wattf" (2.9 lb/"11). l.lMIT ., ., 

vo:: I ·Tilt actual lltf"Ctnt rfduct1on will w1ry dtOeftd'tnq on tilt solvent 

I!E!:lU~!ON 1 content of tilt ti1H1nCJ coat1n9S and tilt conti'Ol lllttlloa seltcua. 

~~~ ·I Irnolttntntlt1on of tilt rec~ncecs conti'Ol •tl10ciS 1:1n f"9duce vo: 'At:~:~ e1111SS1ons Qy 80 to 99 Oti'Ctnt. 

I BASIS: 15,000 sc~"' fac11ity us1nq tnc1neratil)n w1:!1 or,1111~:- 'ltl~ 

,..eovtry or idSOr;lt10ft witll rec:ove~ecs solvtttt '"'"tee H ~uti faiue. 

i C.ottal cost: S1SO,OOO - Sl20.0i~O 1 Anr~utltzed cost: S 60,000- S 7!,01JO i Cost effect1vtntss: SJ4 - S40 Off' ton YOC 

11 
... ·------· ,.·:, •. c.. 

l!'olCll..!TI£S 

voc t~: !S tO":~ 

tc:.~IONa!:! 

vee £~!~s:c~~ 

R,A~::; P£:" 

FACIL.!TY 

t [Stlllllttd lftftull tfP'1SS10ftS fr'Oif. IUtO 1ne ltqnt. =u:y :~:.::• ~·a,:: 

~lr't 90,00~ "~IY" (IOC,OOO ton•v,.). rl1-:s~'S ICOut C.l ~e,.:e~: :• 

itS: I lilt !t~ VO: f"'l U lOftS lilt I On..;.,~. • '' I 

I [I'IISStons ,,.':llfl t:o-otc;ll coettnq l1nes c;111 vi"Y •,..::r.: 21': :: ~ .::: I kq/1'1,. !6!JC: to •.ooc lb/1'1,.). Awe,.aqe ennu•l '"''"'c,ns .,., estH!ta:e: :: ::e 

12,J8C "; (2,620 tOn) Ot" SUCJtC: Ollnt. I 

100 TOI'\/YI\ I SOuit::; 

1

. All uncont,.olltd co1t1nq 1 '"" It tilt &SStiiiOI,· ::lllnts .,.. u:e::e: 

SIZE to •nt '" ucess o# 100 tons of voc "'"year. 

CTG 

E!'!lSS:or; 

L.lMIT 

vee atou~:ON 

P~il 

FAC:L.lTY 

COSTS 

Tile P'WCOIIII'efldtd VOC ""' ss 1on 1 1•1 ts '": 

•· P"; ... couinq 0.23 kq/1 (1 .9 1bl~l•l) """"s ••te .. b. Too eoat1n9 0.34 kg/1 (2.8 lb/~111) •tnus •Itt" 

c. Fintl r'tollr' C:Oittnq 0.58 kq/1 (4.8 lb/~111) mtnus •t:e,. 

I The IC:tull oerc:ent rwduC:t10n •;11 very dtOtfldtnq on tne soivt": 

I 

content of tile uuttnq c:oetinqs end tht contr"Ol N!tnod sele~o;e~. 

!lll)iet!Wntltlon of tht r'tc:oanndeO •tiiOdS can ,duc:e •o: tiiiiH1ons • ., ... 

1. P~;-. COitinq • 80 to 93 Ptf'C:ent. 

b. Too c:olt1nCJ • 75 to 92 Ptf"Cent. 

C:. rlntl f'WOI1r' C:Oitinq • not •vail&Oit 

BASlS: 30 ·55 units oer IIOu,. facility •itll l>UOStintal .,,.,,c,'•:y 

In bOtn tXlStlnCJ ODer'IClOnS lnd PQtenti&lly IOOIIC:~IOlt control sySttiiiS. 

C.oit.al cost: 

""""' 1 , zed cost : . C~st effectlveness: 

12 

ss.soo.ooo - sso.ooo .. ooo 

S2.ooo.ooo - szs.ooo .. ooo 

S1 .000 • S4 .000 ,.,. ton VOC 
I 

I 

i 

I 

: 

. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

.\F~~:-:-t: 

F'AC:~IT:tS 

NUl"!~:: OF : 

AF;:"t:-:-~: I 

FAC:L!'!"l£S 1 

S~&RY OF CiG ooe~~Nr FOR COATING OF ~~AL FURNf~t~( 

.,..ul f~o~rn1tu,.. surhce cou1ng '"''' 1ncl~o~cs1nq tilt 

IDD11Cit1on lftd flasnoff lrtiS, lnd tilt CSry1nq OYtnS. 

Est,_,tecs 1nn~o~al emtss1ons •r• 90,000 Mq/yr (10:.oo~ ::~r.' 

yr). (IS] TillS reornet~ts IOOut 0.3 otrctnt of tSt11111ttC 'IC: 

~ISS10ftS ftlt10ftWIOf.(l'] 

vee t~:sstc:. 

IIAN~[ II[;! I cao 

I 

Estim~ttd IYtrlgt •nnull vee tm1SS10ftS lrt 70 "9 

ton) otr fAcility. F'AC;Ln'Y 

100 TON/YR For I IIIOdtl diD CDit1nq 11nt, I pllftt COit1nq (w1tll no :l'"~llle,.;, 

SOURCE 1,500,000 m2 (16,ZOO,OOO ft2) Qf sntlv;ng oer ye1r would ~1: st:£ IOO~t 100 ton/yr. 

~G Tilt ,..c~ndtd YOC eMission J;•;t is 0.36 kg otr liter EMISSION 

Lli'HT of coat1n9 •1nus Wlttr (l.O 1b/ga1). 

vee Tile ICtUil oercent ~un1Dfl will varoy deoettding on tilt solvent 

REDUCTION content of tilt tliSt1ft9 coat1ngs 1nd tile ~ontrol .. thOd stlt~te~. 

PER I-..ltllltntltion of tile ...cOIIIIItncted cDfltrol .. tllods can rte~uce vc: 

FAC!I.:TY tm1SS10fiS lty 50 to 99 oercent. 

BASIS: A diD coating fac11tty coat1n9 7,000.000 't' of sne 1 .. ,,; 

oer year converting to .. tlr'•OOrnt or tltctr'OdiOOS1t1on: 

cosrs 

c.o;ul con: S 3,000 • S12,,oeo 

Annu1lt Zld cost : Sll,OOO • S 25,000 . .. Cost tfftct1vtness. S.UO S6S1 oer ton vee 

13 
I 

YOC 

EMtSStOr.S 

NATtONiiiOE 

voc 

EMISSIOrl 

UNG£ PER 

FACILITY 

100 TON/YR 

SOURCE 

SIZE 

rn 

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

YOC 

U::IUCT I ON 

P£R 

FACILITY 

COSTS 

I CTG states tNt tfl.,.. h no .. Y to line- 11011 IIIUC:II so 1 went , s 

ct .. 4 

 

: 

tm1tted. ADOut Z9,SOO .. t~ic: tons (32,SOO ton) of solvent a~e usee e&:· , yu~ Clut IIIUC:II of ttus is c:ont~lled. 

Emissions f~ 1 typic:ll uncont~11ed oven •ill be ao~r011matt1J ,. 

I' 

kq/h~ (26 lb/11~). Tile 1ve1'19e annuli eanssions of 'IOC r:~er ~:~lin~ •~ 

esti-.ted to be 31& Mq (340 tonl.(lS) 

C'1'G 1 nd i C:l tes tfllt e1c:fl of tne f•c:iltties, tf unc:ont~llec, cou~d 

easily eac:eed 100 

TM NCOI!ftndecl VOC •tssion 1t•tt ts O.ZO ~:9 1:111' 11ter of e:1at1n9 

lrinus .. u,. (1.7 lb/gal). 

The IC~Il oerctttt ""uc:tton trill vary deoet"•d1n1J on tne solvent 

content of tile existing c:01ttn9S and ;fte c:ont~l metftOd selec::ed ... 1•1emenutton of tM I'WC~ftOed c:onti"Ol •tfiOdl' c:an ""uc:t VOC .. ,sstons lty 90 oe~lftt. 

lAS IS: 10,000 sc:~ facility c:ontrolltng v~: by use of 1nc:1nerat1cn 

•itt! pr1NI')' llelt .-.covery. 

tlo t ul cost: loO~I11111U1y $221,,000 

Annual t zed cost: sas.ooo - sns.oo1o 

Cost effectiveness: Sl OS • $1&1) De~ :c)n VOC 

14 
~--------------------------------------------------·------------~---

I 

I 

vo: EStlmlttd lftftllll eBISSions lr't ,2,000 ~tyr ('6,000 :on1yr.· 11 !~s:cr:~ .,,c, reo~sent 10011t 0.2 Cler"cent of est11111ttd ntt1onw1Cit '10:: HA;IO~IOE emiss1ons. 

voc E~':!SIC~. 

AAs:~ PEP 

FACILITY 

100 TOPUTR 

SOURCE 

SIZE 

CTG 

EP'IlSS ION 

LIMIT 

voc R£DU~ION 

PER 

FACILI'T'f 

c:srs• 

I 

I 

T~e averac;e ann11al VOC emiss1ons •~ estimAted to be 

170 14q ( 185 ton l . 

E~t,.aoolttlnq tile .aael facility data, 1 ol1nt coating 221 .~c: 

clothes •tsfttr' c101nets oer ,..,. would tzceed 100 ton/yr ~ISSlOnt o~ 

""conti"Oiltd VOC. 

The rec~noecs VOC em1ss1on l1•it is 0.3' 19 Ptr liter 

of c~t1nq •1nus .. ttr (2.8 lb/qt1). 

The •ctull oen:ent r'eduction will var-y deoenoinq on tilt solvent 

content of tne ta1st1n9 c~t1nqs and tftt conti"Ol RttftOCI selectees ... IIIIDlftllfiUtion of tne ,..~dtd cantrol •uads c•n ,..duct voc . ewtssions by 79 to 95 percent. 

WIS: 768,000 clotnes WIShtr" caoinets coned per ,..,. 11S1n9 

vtr"ious co.D1ntt1ons of conti"Ol ttchntQues. 

Clo1ul cost: S70,000 • S1 ,%50,.000 

Annu1liztd cost: (SJOO,OOO) • SJSO,OOO 

Cost efftc:t1¥1fttss: (Sl,050) • Sl,180 per ton VOC 

15 

' 
I 

: 

! 

I 

(p. S-1) • 

vee The potential VOC -iSSiOnS per leakin& SOI.It'Ce ran&e f'roa 1.0 to 

niss1ona 10 kll/day. 

ranK• P•r 

fac1lJ ty 

(p. 3-2)• 

100 con/veer A sln,lo leak1n~t »o~o~rc:e has the potential to .. it 0.4 to 3.7 Ma 

•u~o~rc:e •Lzc VOC/year (0.5 to 4.1 ton/yr). A refinery vith between 25 and 

(p. 1-J, 2-J)• 227 leaking c:o111ponent!l vo~o~ld ea1t 100 tons/year of voc:. A 

model .. dlua ~tze refinery aay have 90,000 le&k1n& c:~onents. 

CTC: If a leAkln~t co•ponent has a VOC concentration of ove1~ 10,000 ppa 

ewal••Lon :u: tne potent lal leak !lo~o~rc:e. lt sho1.1ld be sched~o~led l!or .. inl1aiu tenancw and repa1red vith1n I 5 ,\ayll. 

(p. 1-J)• 

voc !at1 .. ted to prevent the release of 1821.1 Ma/year (2007.4 ton/ 

red1.1ctlon per year) of VOC at a .ade1 .. d1~.~a size refinery (15,900 113/day) by 

facil1c:y red~o~cin& eaia»ions fro• 2933.6 Ma· (3%33.5 con) to 1114:.5 M& 

Ccalc:~o~lated) (12%6.1 ton) per year.ll 

Collt~ lash: A monic:orin& and maintenance proJr .. for a 15,900 a 3 I cay 

(p. io-ts)• ClOu,ono bb1/day) refinery (Fo~o~rth ql.l&rter 1977 dolla~a). 

lnHtr~o~ .. ntation Capital Cost 81800 

Tut:al AnnuM II :r.ecl Collt!l 115,000 

Cn~t Effectiveness S/H& (86.8S)tiJ 

S/ton (78.81)tiJ 

• 

Th• !tOI.Irce of the !lulllll&ry Lnfonnat1on ls the indic:aced page nuaber(s) in "Control 

of \/olat!le or.an1c CoiiPOI.Iftd Lo&aks frOIII PecrohtUII Refinery Eq~o~1paent ... EPA-~)Q/2-7~-0)~. 

16 

I 

I 
fecli&U• i 

-------------------------------------------------·~ voc •.o • 10·· "''" o • 10• ,_,,,, ••" .. '" lor 1977. ••Ucft .-~ .. ,... , •• , ..... ,. ea.uc ~.0 "'"CWIIC of •cac&oM" eeurce ••t••c•• 1 ;... ... _,_, ___ ,_._. _ _, __ -_ •. _._._-_ .. ''• ___________ j 

woe •· "" ••-•• lector of 0 ... kl VOC:/1 coouna IMo wo&or 

-ool• "· ~ 111 vnt/ .. 1 coou .. 1- wocerl c .. Ito ••.-cc• frw ..... ,,, a locUity .. cUUlOI 0 coo&IIIC c-- of 7\ ,_HOftl oraMIC 

locUUy aolwDftt, :S •orcont ooU• ., wol-. 

'"' 1• 10 • "· Por locUIUoe .. uualal oa o1ocu•o.-oltl• •roc••• ella VOC: 

J 

I 

~-J)o ••••1,. foc&ur lo 0. Jt kl VOC:/1 cooU111 looo wour (],0 alao1). 

~-------~-----------------------------------------------------~-----~ I 100 ,_,,, "" .. , .. , .. foetor of ~.) a YOC/col ... u .. , ... , • ···-, ...... 0 

· ••rc• •••• nee or l.•• • 10' a•l cooU111 .. cerloll,r _,,. •o .. .,.,.,~ ror • 

1 lcalc,.loc•l focUUy co •• • ,., ... uol 100 ,_,, .. -reo. ;.,._ _____ _ 

CTC 

.. , .. , .. Uo&c 

,,, .. , . 

YOC 

....... u .. 

c •• , •••• , .... 

•· A&r • IorcH .o_U ,. .. , .. 

u-

•· Cloor cooc 

c. .. or laf""-' color 

-•o or -u -or 

of colon o"U" 

l. ,_01' ... u .. o 

z. OCI\er 

•• Clll& ... r ........ _ .. r. 

or oon- porfo-• 

Cl\oroctorloclce 

•· ,,.~ .... , celet' eta•••· ..... -· "' ce1oro -UM, or fine cHc • 1111trao&M lorr-

•••cl'aCe 

Proc- -lUcoUoa ,.,_, 100 cr•c-c 

o.o\ ka/l co.• a/aou 

o. l6 ke/1 o.o llolaoU 

o.,,z kall "·' '~'•"" 

Pal'canc rMucs!e Ut !!!C •1••'•• 

(CMUIIII ..... &-C clloa.a) )0••1 

to. 

l 1 por facUlty 

,,. z-u• 

·-----------------------------------J , Cooca 

1 <••· J-1 co I J-141• 

I 

,,.,., "_,,. euo coauaa u .. (- 743.000 .z,,,, -a • to• u:l,rl ! 

wltl\ al•d• or - ... , _ .. u ... uellla o--.... ,. "--·· or •ttray•coac •••11caci .. e. 'ftte ru1•• c-..r sM coce of 

-r•& dUierooc VOC: c011trol .,u ... a. 

C:.•tcal CMt 

1110001 

17 

ZO•l,l17 
SL~Y OF CTC OOC~~NT FOR FACTORY SURFACE COATINC OF 

FLAT WOOD PANELING 

lllfPC:Ud 

focl11U.,. 

, 11 l•Z>• 

--·-·· j,. ..... , ,,, i of foe: toot · racUltioo 

l (p •-:>. 

n, .. ·•' rc-. "''' '·" 1 1111 • .-.. ore '"ccor&vo chat •urf••·or coal ,.,. 

foll-lftt. IVP"" "' flat WOOd p~nelo: 

•· Horcl-d plvovood 

11. Portlrloooorcl 

c. Hardboard 

···-l ·- ---.. - ···---------------------1 

M.!.•r.J•d FacUlcleo 

o. Har4w00d 111~ 

11. Porclcloooarcl 

c. Hardboard 

Moclonvlcle Tocol 

Z47 

10 

67 

------+-·- --·-·-------------------1 . voc •·• • to• "IIYr (9.) • 10• coae/yrl ooci .. c.O for 1977 which 

ropr .. onco ~ouc o.s percent of ocaclonary oource ooc1 .. ced .• coolon• .. , .. , __ ,, l••tl-Lclo 

~---· 

- -- ... ______________________________________ ~ 

l•c••lon 

ronp por 

roc IItty 

IToole z-z I'• :-~). 

-----

0 ,_,,r 

urt-e elao 

ol.cul.ocedl 

""toncl•l VIII' •••I••''"'• ,..., coecoll ourfaco oroa are: 

u. to '" 1.1.1 lo.a/ IIICl .: (0 .I co Ul. S 111/LOOO feZ) 

""'"'""'"• "" ct .. roouna/curlttl llooc••• oo ... u oo tho coouns 

-cerlala -·"· 

_____ .. ___ --------------------...., ll.'laod 011 the Vnt r•tooLOII ron .. oboft, o 100 

~Oot A elnl~ OllftUOl thrOUtltiiUC of: 

J.e • •o• co 1.1 • toa •coadorll , ... ta/yr 

Whore • •toadorcl panel to Z.97 .Z ClZ feZ). 

I C'TC ·-··---+--------------------------------~ 

! 

.. , •• , ... U•H 

j<11 vh 

Prlncad her~ 'l,vood ..... ,.rClC'IC"IIOOrll 

Nacurol r&nlOh h•r._.,. 'l'I'VOOII 

Cl••• 11' ftntahoo for herd• .,.,,.,. IIIIMilna 

Aeco ... ndod 11•1ceclon 

Z.9 aa vOc/100 .~ 

(6.0 111 YOC/1000 fc2) 

s.a •• YOC/100 .Z> 

uz.o n VOC/1000 rcz> 

4,1 as VOC/\00 .Z) 

<10.o •• VOC/1000 rczl 

r,~·--·-- -~-;:-;;;.;;, .. , vnc: _, •• , ... r.oucc1on, doi'Oftdi•s 011 coauns 

reclu•· c '"" :P•r faclllCy 

I

. 1 raole 2•1 

II· 2•4)• 

·-· --- Co•c• 

•(Toole l•Z 

II• ~9)• 

I 

.. cvrLol Aftd cov•raae, chrou&h yeo of ¥ator•-.ffto cooci•l•• 

lnc&noroc&vn, auavrllcloa, ulcrav&oloc curlas or oloccr.. •••• cur&na. 

~:::::-------l---------------------------~~------2------------~,i 

•-lolyr: 2,000,000 4,000,000 

~- -· 00--r-----r----+---....,..---~ I Wocerllortte 

~----·-------·~------~--------~------~------~ l.:o"col '""at ! 

($11)00) j ~~:::~:·· .. """t 

Co•c •"""' ,.,,.., .... fS/Ma) 2119 

CS/conl Zlolo 

--• ·-··· •·- • ---...1.--·----__JL..... ____ _L __ .. I 

101 

UV/WocenftrM W•cerbo"'•l UV IWor•rb""'ei 

U5 5% 155 

124.6 :oo.a %34.4 

Z9:Z :z" 264 

264 ZlZ :ZloO 

eon-.e •-rc.' of tho a-ry lnforwoUon Lo ctle lnd1caced 11•1• n.-or 111 "'Control of 

Valoctlo OFaonlc '•l•olon• fr .. ta1oc1n1 StaC1onory Sourcao, Yoluoe Vll: Factory ~urf•ce CooC1nt of Floc Wood PanoUn~&,"' !PA-450/Z-711-0)%. 

'noflnJtlon on p. vll of F.PA-450/2·71-03%. 

18 

r 
i 

I 

I 

! 

i 

I 

(p. 1•2)• 

VOC lO ,000 Ma/yr (55,000 tona/yr) eati .. ced for 1977 which r111~reeen~s 

.. le•lon• aDouc 0.3 percent of ltatiOn&r)' IOUrCI e&ti .. ted VOC eaiaa :Lon• . .. nationwide 

voc Hot aveilaDle 

laiaalon 

ruse per 

fac1l U:y 

.100 con/yr Not evllf 1&D11 

IOurce liae 

c::c 1. a. Surface condenaara or equivalent control on. venca f'ro. 

.-Laaioft reactor&, diatillation O!laraciofta, cryacallizerl; c:en- 11ait trifusea, and vacuua dryers that eait 6.1 klfday (15 lb/day) 

<•· 1-5). or •re VOC. 

h. Surface condanaer• aysc .. et certain t~erat~o~re ve:rluS VOC 

vapor preaaure criteria. 

2. Additional "1M1clt1c eaisaton reduction& are required for air 

dryere, production equip .. nc exhauac sysc•·•· and scorase and 

cranafer of VOC. 

3. lncloeuraa or cover• are recOIIIeftdad for rotary vacuua f1 Ltere, 

proceaaa.ns liquid conca1n1n1 VOC and in•proceaa tanlta. 

4. R.a11air of coaponents laak1n& liquid a conca1n1ns voc. 

voc I Moe ava1laDla 

reduc t1oft 

per fac111ty 

Coau C.p1tal and Annualized Coat ara11h• are provided for the following CYII .. (pp. 5·14 of control equ1p .. ftt: conaervacion vents, float in& roofs, 'l)riiiUrl to 5·42) • ••••ela, carbon ad~tor!lt1on syece .. , theraal and catalytic lli\Cinerat1on 

eyece .. , water cooled condanaers, chilled water and brtne C1)oled con- de1taere, freon cooled condeneer1, packed bed •crubDers and 'itlftturi •crunhere. 

•Coat effectivaneea data 11 DOt calculated for tY!Iical plantll • 

• 

nte •ource of the 1"-rY lnforMC10n 11 the indicated pase (I) in "Contrlll of Volatile 

Or"anic !aiaaione fro• Kanufacture of Synthesized Pharaaceuc teal ProcluctJI," EPA-450/2•78•029. 

19 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
S~~y OF CTC DOCUMENT FOR MANUFACTURE OF PNEUMATIC RUBBER TIRES 

;:;;:::t:d • .. ·r-;:;,~:r-t;·rc• llllln.uf.~c·t~;l-n& p1o1ftU • producing pa11sen·;e·r· :·a;: and lignt . 

I fact Utlell ;and -dt 11111 cJutv truck tire». ~eraUonll aftected are: undertread 

'I (pp. 1-1. c .. ent1n&, head d1pf'1n~. tread end cementin&. and green tire spray1n&. 

1-)). 

- ~UIIIber or ~x1•u• of &~ rubher tl re plants nationwide 

affected 

facill tie11 

( p. 2-2). 

I voc 1976 VOC .-iaaluna rstimate from rubber tire manufactur1n~ totalled 

ew.ia11lona 88,200 ~/yr (97,200 tona/yr). This quantity represents 0.6 percent 

: nationwide of total national VOC .. i.~1ona fra. stationary sources. 

i (p. 1·2) • 

I voc The averaae tire plant ia eaci .. ted to rclaaae 4,000 Ita per day I elliaalon (1,820 lb/day) of e•iasiona or 1,000 Ml voc per year (1,100 tona/y't'). 

ru1e per I facility 

(p. 1•2). 

100 tona/y't' The •odel plant, producin¥ 16,000 tir .. /day, has potential to emtt 

·!IOUrce size 1,460 "a/yr (1,600 tons VOC/y't'). Therefore a plane producing approxi• 

(p. 2-8) • .. tely 1,~)0 ~ires/day would be a potential 100 tons/yr source. 

CTC VOC .. lflalona reduction fr~ the affected operations 11 recommended 

.. 1aalon throuah uae of ·carbon adsorption or incinerntion. Water-baaed coat• 

Uait ln11 .. Y be uaed for green tire 1praytna. 

(p. 4-2). .. 

voc a. Carbon adsorption ttves an overall efficiency of 62-86 percent in 

reduction reduclna VOC OMissions, when applied to the affected operations. 

per f acill ty b. Incineration &ivea· an overall efficiency of 59-81 percent when (p. 1-4) • applied to the affected operations. 

c. Water-based concinas. applied co green tire sprayina. provide an overall .. lssion reduction efficiency of 97 percent. 

Coats !!!!.!!.: A IIOdul 1&,000 tl't'es/day rlant us1nJ the various control (;~p. 4-ll. tadlnolo&Les recommended on the followinv, affected operations. 

'-lS) • All coAt» are b .. ed on January 1978 dollars. 

Unuertread Bead d1ppin& Tread end I Creen tire ce~~~entin& ce~~~entinR I •T'rayin& - I 

Coapl tal COflt 130-340 115-250 135-375 j 15-450 

($1000) 

I Annuali aod e·o" t 92-280 70-985 100-340 i 118-490 

I ($1000) 

L CoAt ~ffwctlvenc~fl 

I CS/!1&) 166-505 1.4:10-ZO,AOO 1.140-3.880 202-839 

(S/tnn) 150-458 1,340-11,800 1,000-3.500 i __ ._ l84-i63 I 

*'The ooour•:l' nf tnt: "-ry 1nfunution t"' the 1nd1caced rtaai.'(S) 1n "C:ont't'OI 

of VnlatliC! OrJienlc Ellll•u•lona~ fro111 Manufacture of Pneuuci.; Rubber Tires " 

EPA•4 50/2-78•0 lU. • 

20 

' 

I 

' I 

I 

I 

I 

: 

i 

I 

i 

I 

' 

! 

l 

I 

I 

I 

i 
-~. 

!'\oU l Omt l de 

(p. 1-2). 

voc 

em1aa1on 

ranae porr 

facility 

(pp. 3-3. 

3-9). 

100 tona/yr 

BOGrC:e liZe 

ere 

a~1aaion 

Umlt 

(pp. 5-l, ~4). 

VOC· 

r'tductlon 

per facility I ( pp. 3•3, 

3-9). 

r.,,.ta 

(pp. 4-9. 

4•12} • 

I 

I 

I 

y 

s . 

The .. 1aa1on ran•e for a 30.5 • (100 ft) diameter tank storing 41.4 kPa 

(6 pai) vapor prc~sure aaaoline 1a 212 Mg/yr (~33 tons/yr) for a slightly 

gapped priaary seal to 2.2 l'tg/yr (2.4 tons/yr) for a t1gir\t r1-mounted 

•econdary seal over a ti~ht priaary seal. 

No llln•Je rloat1nK roof tank ill expected to eait 1110re th••n 100 tOnM/yr. I '• 

A cont1nuou~ secondary seal nr equivalent closure on all aff~cted 

~toraae tanks, piU8 certain 1napect1on and recordkeeping requir ... nta. 

Ran.ea fro. anout 200 to 2 Hg/yr (220 to 2.2 tona/yr). 

!!!!.!.= Ex.tL-rnal floatlniJ roof tank J0.5 • (100 ft) in d1.&Mter with a 

capacity of 8.91 • 106 Uters (55,000 bbl) contrc1lled by a rtm 

•ountL-d S~'"tJnclo~r; ac~l. 

r.apltal coat 

($1000) 

Annualized c:osc 

($1000) 

16.9 

).3 

I (&6);. -3,655 

I ($/ton) (59)~-3.316 

.._ ____ ....J... •. _ .. -------· -----------------·-------

-The 11ource nf the 'luftllary lnfnl'ftUJt lon is the indicated paRe(s) in "Control of Volatile 

Or~anlc: Elll111,.iuna fr0111 Pc:trnleum l.lttuid Stnrase in External F'loating Roof Tanks," EPA-450/2-78-04,7. 

~umoer• ln parentheaia indicate c:r~dlts. 

21 
tWila111nn111 

nat lnnwldr 

(p. :-R) • 

h. .10.000 !

11/yr 19711 ClJ,OOil con~t/yr) 

'nlla repreaenc,. abnuc 0.8 pvrcl'ftt of ~c.uionary 11ource , .... t lm."lt••i 

t•aJ !IIIII l"Onll. I I 

L . ·-·-- -· -----------------·---------- voc 

c•l••lun 

r•nar per 

faclllty 

(calculatl.'d) 

, 100 tona/yr 

!.!lourc• 11Ur 

I C'TC 

' -i111alnn i llllllt ., I (pf'l. I•. o 

l•'J) • 

I 

7.4 11,;/t•rlntint; •anlt per year 

(IS.:! con11/un1 t) 

1 "&/prlnttna unlt per Y'-'•r 

(1.1 tonA/printinc unit per year) 

A plAnt will ht' ~ rot•nti:al 100 cona/yr VOC source lC it uses 

110•180 Ma (120-200 tuna) or Ink pl'r year, where the solvent 

concPntracLon IM ~0-85 p•rcenc. 

·-------- ""• uf water•hurne ur hillh l'olld!l lnka ••tlna certain ~:..,lllpos1tion 

crita:rla or th._..,, •• nf capture and cont'C'ol equ1p-nc which provides: 

;~. 7~ pt'rct•nt nver•ll VOC reduction where a rub Uc~1t ion 

rutocr:wurt' proces11 ls _,loyed: 

h. 65 J'l("rct•nt ovcraJ.l VOC rcductlon where a packac:l.nK rocorococr:avur• rroce1111 Is .-ployed: or, 

c. 60 p .. rc••nc ·overall VOC reduct I on where a ( leXOSI~aphi C 

, prlntln~ procc11a L~ employed. 1------- ···-r-------·· - . ·-- --- voc: s.~ ;a" I:TC: I htlt MOV('. 

: rl'duc:t l "" 1 

~-r~r.~l u:_L__ 

I 

I 

--l 

~ I -.. - -- --. --- -------· ----~-·- -1------ - VIIC ,.oncru1 urt Inn I incinerator 1

1

. Incinerator ' ,,d;~:~~;r:"" . ad~~~::·t": .. m\ Co11t11 

(pp. 4-11 

4-1 )) • tnk uaaar. 

,../yr 7 1 

C ton8/yr) ( 7. 7) 1' 

z.soo 

(2,7S0) 

I vee concentration pp• i 500 

r

ca,tcal cost j 

Annua 11 zPd """ I ')4,000 

24,900 

soo 

l,ltO ,000 

1 1.66S,SOO 

J,SOO 

0,8&0) 

I.~oo 

701,000 

7::,!100 

7,1011 

( ~. 7:'11 

:,:.nn 

70 I ,tlOO 

( .:.1. ;nn,-. 

l

l C:OII C t' (( IIC' t l VC"ft .. llll 

----. -·-- ~.l- -~~~.. ---.. J 8,)110 L t,liSO 51 

'-·-~_7_o_ -~·-'·-"_o __ ._ ____ "'_, __ _ I I 'ol 

I l I) 

""The oo<IUrct• nf tht• 'lulllll:lry lnfor•at lun ,,. thto lndlc:1t~d paae n..-ber 1n "'Control or 

Volatile OrJI&nlc f.lllllllalunM fro1111 F.xllltlnr. !'ic;~Clonnry Source!l, Vol111nr Vl.[l: c:r:\!'hH 

Art111 Rntoaravure .1nd Fh•xn~:r.,phy," 1-:PA-4')0/2-711-0)), 

Numer• In p11renthe11es aro.o savlnKfl· 

22 
· .. 

\ i'T'. l-.!. 

:-1) • 

Th~ ~stimated 158,000 '*'• VOC/yr is 0.9 p•rcent of total stationary 

Mource t'"'t1~tecJ emi»slon~t. 

1-------------------------------------------------------------------------

voc 

em1a11ton 

rangl' per 

facility 

(p. S-2) • 

,,. 

h. 

Coin-up 

COIIIIII~trt:lll1 

1 r. lndu11t r loll 

Uncontrolled VOC emissions 

!IL.ll 

1,460 

),240 

32,400 

(lb/yr) 

() ,200) 

(7,200) 

(72 .000) 

------rtndu,.tri.'ll dry cleanins; plant, procesain~ 750 Ma (825 tons) of 

pt'r y~nr, would be 11 potential 100 tons VOC p•r year s~urc:e. 

l00.tonll/yr A lar~t' 

aource •iz~ cloth•• 

(extrapollltrd): 

err. 

em t '"' I nn limit 

( pp. Il-l 

6-4)"' 

voc 

reduction 

per fac:il1ty 

(pp. 2-5, 

2-7)• 

.'\. Reduct tun of ·.,.fryPr outlt't concPntration to less than 100 ppm VOC, 

hy meun>~ uf c;arhun ~d!llorpcion. (Facilic:leR with inade<Juate sp~c:e. 

or !ltl•:am cnpnc 1 ty ror adsorbers are excluded.) 

h. Reductlun ur VOC: t-llllisllions frr:. filter and distillation wastes. 

c. F:l.lm1nntt• llquid ~nd vapor leaks. 

C~rhon adRorptlon "PPlicd co commercial and lndustr1al plants will 

rt'duca ov~rall VOC emis,.ions by 40-75 percent. 

Carbon adsorhars ror a c011111ercial pl~nt cleaning 46,000 kg 

i~' (100,000 lh) or c:Jothe!ll per year. 

I 

C.lp Ita l c·n!lt $4.500 

Annuallzcd cn,.t 5300 

.__ __________ L _ _:_~·::'_t_i_v_c:_"_•_•_s ______________ :_:o_o __ :_:_:: __ :_:_~M-~-:" ________________ .....J 

rnte "nurc:t· or thr "u11111ary lnfC)t"ftation 11'1 the indicated page nuft)er in "Control oi 

VolatJl• nr~11nic ~~ia~tlon,. from Pucnloroetnylene Dry Cleanina Systelfts," EPA-450::!-18-050. 

23 
I 

I 

:I!UIIoer of 

affected 

facUitiea 

voc 

•iaa1ona 

naC1anv1de 

VOC 

••iaaion 

ranae per 

facility 

CTC 

.. iaaion 

l1J111t 

(pp •. 1 

and 2) 

voc 

reduction 

per facility 

Costa 

I 

Not avail&Dle 

Noc available 

Noc available 

The control ;approach is a c0111binat1on of test1na, •on1tor1ng, and .quip-

••nt desi111n to ensure that ROOd .. 1ntenance practice• are etll1)loyed to 

prevenc leaks fro.. truck tanu or tank ca.partMnta and vapor collection 

ayat- durinR guoline transfer ac bulk planta, bulk terminal•, and 

aervice atac1ons. A leak is a read1na areacer than or equal to 100 .. 

percent of the LEL at 2.S cm from a potential leak source as detected by 

a combustible gas detector. 

Not available 

:.lot avallab le 

-The aourc:e of the summary information is the indicated pa•• number in "Control of Volatile 

OrJjanic: C0111pound Leakll from Casoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Sy,.tema," EPA-450/2-7R-051. 

24 

' 

I ' 

I 

' ' 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

' 

I 

I 

I 
CTG E~ISSION LIMIT: 

CGr:7?.0L TECHI!ICUES: 

Typical size uncontrolled plants could emit: 

high density polyethylene 

polypropylene 

polystyrene 

2,100 tons/yr 

!i, 700 tons/yr :~60 tons/yr 

The following emission reductions or limitations are 

considered representative of RACT: 

(1) For polypropylene plants using liquid phase 

processes: a 98 we.ight percent reduction or reduction 

to 20 ppm of continuous VOC emissions from the 

polymerization reaction section (i.e., 'rE!actor vents), 

the material recovery section (i.e., decctnter vents, 

neutralizer vents, by-product and diluent recovery 

operations vents), and the product fini~hing section 

(i.e., dryer vents and extr.usion and pel~letizing vents). 

(2) For high-density polyethylene plants using liouid 

phase slurry processes: a 98 weight percent reduction 

or reduction to 20 ppm of continuous VOC e~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 fro~ 

the materia 1 recovery section ( i . e. , proc1uc t devo 1 a ti 1 i :e'" 

system). 

F'lares or thermal incinerators are the mc)St commonly 

used control devices. They can destroy 98: of the 

streams ducted to them. 

Condensers are often used on polystyrene vents. These 

can control 95: of the VOC emissions passing through the~. 

25 
26 
I 

J ,-

wtu ~MISSiuN LIMIT: 

Equipment s~ecirications and inspections/maintenanc~ 

requirements: 

1. Cappiny of open-end~d lines (except when 

in use) 

2. Quarterly leak detection and re~air ot pumps, 

valves, compressors, safety reli~f devices 

3. Kepair components appearin~ to leak on oasis 

of sight, smell, sound 

4. Less· frequent monitoring tnan quart~rly for valves 

in gas or lignt liquid service 

5. Weeklt visual inspections for indications or leaks 

from pumps in light liquid service 

6. Monitor safety relief devices after eacn over~r~ssure 

relief for proper reseating 

27 
CTG EMISSiuN LIMIT: 

y

1. Petroleum solvent dry cleaning dryer·: 

t:itner 

o vue limit of 3.!;) lb of voc per lULl lo ary 

weight of articles dry cleaned 

Or 

0 Install solvent recovery dryer 

2. Petroleum solvent filtration system: 

Either 

0 Limit VOC content in filtration wastes 

to 1 lb per lOU lb dry weight of articles 

dry cleaned 

Or 

o Instal I cartridge filtration system; drain 

filter cartriages in their sealed housings 

for 8 nours or more before their removal 

3. Repair petroleum solvent vapor and liquid 

leaks witn1n 3 work1ny aays after iaentift1n~ 

the leaks 

-k;.__ 28 
·k:-::. 

~.u EMISS10N LIMIT: 

For eacn air oxidation process vent stream, eitner: 

1. Use combustion devic~ (e.g., tnermcll oxidation, 

flares, boilers) to reduce VOC emissio,,s oy ~o we1ynt 

percent or to 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent; 

OR: 

2. Maintenance of total resource er'tectiven~ss (T~E 1 

index value greater than l.U (TRE is a measure of cost efi~ctiveness of controlliny air oxidation streams ~1:~ 

a 981. combustion device (thermal oxida1:ion). A Tr<E incex 

ot 1.0 is equivalent to a cost eft~ctiveness or 

SltiUU/My (198u dollars) of VOC emission reduction) 

29 
rlanyes ana connections, gas-operat~a control vaives. 

RAeT applies only to equipment containing or contac:in~ 

a l)rocess stream with VOC concentration ot' l.U perc~nt 

by weight or more 

CTu tMISSIUN LIMIT: Equi~JR~ent StJeCifications and inSIJ~Ctions/maintenance 

·requirements: 

1. Quarterly monitoriny of pumps, valves, compressors, and relief valves 

2. Weekly visual insp~ction of pumps 

3. Repair any component that appears to be leakin~ 

on tne basis of siyht, smell, or sound 

4. Less-frequent monitoring than quarterly for 

dift'icult-to-monltor valves 

5. Capping of open-ended lines (except when OJ,Jen end is in use) 

6. Lealciny compon~nts should De tagge<l dnd re!)alrec 

witnin 15 days or at next. snutdown. 

30 
rlanyes ana connections, gas-operat~a control vaives. 

RAeT applies only to equipment containing or contac:in~ 

a l)rocess stream with VOC concentration ot' l.U perc~nt 

by weight or more 

CTu tMISSIUN LIMIT: Equi~JR~ent StJeCifications and inSIJ~Ctions/maintenance 

·requirements: 

1. Quarterly monitoriny of pumps, valves, compressors, and relief valves 

2. Weekly visual insp~ction of pumps 

3. Repair any component that appears to be leakin~ 

on tne basis of siyht, smell, or sound 

4. Less-frequent monitoring than quarterly for 

dift'icult-to-monltor valves 

5. Capping of open-ended lines (except when OJ,Jen end is in use) 

6. Lealciny compon~nts should De tagge<l dnd re!)alrec 

witnin 15 days or at next. snutdown. 

30 
ATTACHMENT 7 

EPA PROTOCOL FOR CALCULATING DAILY EMISSION RATE 

FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT~DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT OPERATIONS 

(TO BE PROVIDED) 
ATTACHMENT 8 

APPENDIX D. NOVEMBER 24, 1987, FEDERAL REGISTER 
F.deral R~ I Vol. 52. ~. ~e I Tuesday. ~vember ~. 1981 I Notices 451!5 

lnfonnation far PropoNCi Standards. 

EP.-\~13-G-01~· '1~=·Paru lor • s.rsace Colllllll 0 

~-- WedUn•• aadQvound lnf .,..... for Prolt~d Stana.rds. 

- ~ga.Dec:ealber 1915. D': =ociaeGDcally R.ac:uve Orwanic 

Co...,-d .EJDIUiaaa From CODIWMr 

and c,nuraereal Prociac!S. EPA 90:/4-

86-401-lftPiftd by EPA Repon D. 

~ove,.._UM& 

· 9. Evaluaaon ola PaiDt Spny Booda 

t:talluiiAil Rean:Wation. EPA-&00/~ 

86-14!. 

10. BeMfit. of Mic:rDprac:euor Control 

ol C..CDI Oveu for Solwnt 8aHG 

Coatmp. EPA125/:~t. September 

1914. 

The EPA Ration IV hu prepand. with 

contractar u1iataDee. a nWIJDer of 

reparta OD 1pecific DOD-C'TC IOIU'Cel ill 

sped.fic cities. Thue report1 descnbe 

control techDOlOIY wbicb is available. 

The reparts lilted below were prepared 

by EPA Rqion IV. . 

u. Volatile Qrwaaic Compound 

Control at Specific Source1 to Louilvilla. 

Kentucky ud Na1bville. Teuesaee. 

EPA-901/e-11~. December 1911. 

Thia repart dila&~an control 

tec:hnolou for th ... indUitries: 

Wood Fumitun · 

AlUIIUDwn Rollina MiD Lubricant 

Control 

Fiberwlau Reialorced Polynter Boat 

Buildint (Sr,rene Emiuioaa) 

12. Tedmical S1qtp011 ia tbl 

Development of a Reviaed Ozoae State 

Implementation Plua lor AtlULt&. 

Ceo11ia. preparwcl.for EPA Retion IV by 

Pacific: Environmental Semen. EPA 

Contract No. -..oz-3881. Aupst 1915. 

This report includes: 

ArchitecturaJ Surface Coatint 

Automobile Refinisbint 

Commercsal/Consumer Solvent UH 

Fuel Combustion 

Cuoline Volatility 

A1rc:aft Emassaons 

De~Jreasan@ 

Lawn and Carden Equipment 

!3. Summary Report for Technical 

Suppor: :n Development of a Revised 

Ozone Sla!e Implementation Pl3n for 

~.1e:nplus. Tennessee. prepared for EPA 

RP.o;:on IV hv Pac&fic En" .ror.me~tal 

Ser·. ;r:e~. EPA Cor.mu:t :-.lo. 68-0:-31187. 

! ;ne 1985. 

T~1s mult&·volume report ar.cludes: 

·::o.,d Fum&ture Coauna 

!l.;r!e LoadiniJ Fac11ines 

Sh~et Fed P:.perboard Coauna 

C!lem&c.Ai Process1n1 Plants 

Soh·ent Extracuon 

Offset Litho@raphy 

Buik Plants 

14. Tecbnicallnformataon Document 

for Technac:al Support in Development of 

a ~ Omne State tmpll!ftll!'ft'tation 

Plan for B~ilam. Alabama. 

prepared for EPA Repan IV by Paci5c 

Enrironllmltal Semees. EPA Ccmtract 

No. tii-OZ-3881. nM canmtl of a series 

of repam poablished in OctDber and 

Noftftlbfor t984 and febnaai"J' 1985. 

Irntastaet coftl'ed include: 

Surfaca C".oatiq llf ~11• A.ircral1 

PaiDt ManllfactUDIII 

Coke Procasaes 

Lamination 41 Vlnyl Coutertops 

MineraJ Wood Productioll lndUitry 

Bnck .Naaufactwin11ndu.atry 

Explosives Manulac:lvnnllnciUitry 

A number of CDIUZ'Oltec:Anolae 

documents haw beu wadely CU'C111ated as dralt doc:umentl for review. Some of 

these docwnelltl have never beu iaaaaed as final docwnentl sucb as crc·. for 

variou.a rnaona. but they still contain 

much helpful technical ialormation. 

Copin of aome of the1e may be still 

available from EPA. espedally from the 

Emissions Standanb and Ensmearm1 

Diviaioa of the Office of Air Qaality 

Plaraai.q and Stuadarcia. AIDOIII th ... 

are: 

tS. Draft. ""Contz'Ol of Volatile Qrwanic: 

Compouad EnUaaiou From Full-Web 

Procua-Colar HeatHt Web OffMt 

Lithapapbic Prinliftl, •• Aquat 111ft. 

1L Draft. '"Conaol Tecbaique 

Cuidelinn for the Coaaol of Volatile 

Qrwanic Emiaaiona From Wood 

Furniture Coatins." Apriltm. 

11. Draft. -Fabric: Prilltiftllnda~ 

BackpoUDd lllfonutiDil for Ps..,......t 

Stawdarda ... April %1.1181. 

18. Draft. "Economic: Impact ADaly.ia 

of Catalytic Incineration and Carbon 

Adlorption on the Fabric Printint 

lnduslrf. ·• November 1111. 

19. Draft. "Conaol of Volatile Qrwanic 

Emission~ From Existins Stationary 

Sources: Paint Manufactllrins Industry ... 

U.S. EPA. OAQPS.ln addition. EPA"s 

Air Toxica Control Tecbnoloty Canter 

bas issued the followinl report: 

::0. Air Strippinl of Contaminated 

Water Sources. Air Emisaions and 

Control. July 20. 1987. Prepared for Air 

Toxacs Control Technoloty Center. U.S. 

En\"tronmental Protection A~reney. 

~.esearc!l Tnansle Park. North Caroline 

Z~ll. 

PIJtllntiol Nt~tv SoutT:tl nr~,•it~w (.\'SRI 

.\1easuns 

The primary approach a State could 

follow to mattwaae the effects of IJI'OWih 

by reductions throu1h its NSR PrGRram 

would be to sub1ect more sources to 

new source rev1ew. 

The followan1 meas!olfel are beina 

sugested for States to consider in their 

control stratqies aa appropnate 

techniqun to deal with pwtb. Under 

current rales. new sOW"Ces and 

mocfifications may be exem;11ed from 

tile Pm 0 major NSR l'l'qlnrements by: 

Ill Hnina a potmtial to ennt beiow 

c!!'tain threshold.s [100 tons per year 

(tpy) for new sources and 40 rpy of vee 

for modifications to lt'nsnnw ma1or 

sourcesj: (2l not beans locatn 1n an area 

desipated u nonattAu:uaent Wlaer 

section 107 of the Clean Air Act !Act): 

and t31t~tUalifyins for one of the spectfic 

exemption• contaaned 1n 1be NSR 

rqulatioM (e.s .• conversaOft to 

municipal wastes for !)ower generation. 

produc:tton inc:rea~es not linnted by a 

permal. increased OJ)er&tlftl noun). 

Each of these situataona has 1 

se!)arate set of pesstble solunons or 

revision~. 

(t 1 Th,.shoJds-The thresholds 

contained in the NSR program could be 

lowered to. say. 25 tpy for major sources 

and major modificataons. A significant 

portion of the total VOC em1ssaons 

aenenrily come from small sources. so 

lowerint Qtof& would bnna 

sipific:uatly more of the VOC emission• 

into the major NSR program. Evn zs rpy 

threshold may not COYer a majonty of 

the emissions rnulting from new 

aourca. One study bas ahown that for 

VOC's. modificationa and new IGW'Citl 

eauttiqlen than 5 tpy compese 55 

percent of total new VOC emissions. 

(%) L«:Gtion Ouuide Nonatt4inment 

..4nro-States may wish to apply the 

non.nainment area I'CSR req'airementl 

of aec:tion 113 of the Onn M Act (and 

State programs under that section) to 

aources located outsicie but near 

desipated nonattainmant U"eas. 

· (3) Sptlt:ifir: uemption-The 

definition• currently contained in the 

NSR program exempt certaan increases 

in emissions from beina constdered as a 

modification. These exemptions allow 

sources capable of accommodating 

allemalive fuels or raw matenals to 

swttch fuels or raw :natenals [e.g .. from 

oil to coal) Mthout betna sub1ect to 

major NSR requirements. Also. sources 

may 1ncrease thetr operaung hours i e.g .• 

£rom II hours per day to : .. hours ?!r 

ua~·l and throut~hput (!.1 .. from 00 

percent of CIIOiiC&tyl to !he mu:rmum 

pnss&ble whtle mee:sng F~der3i :":SR 

r.:qu&remP.nts (unless the c!t:1n~es ilre sp~:csfical!~· limlled b)' Federal 

~tnfurcuble cnnduionsl. Slates could 

~emo,·e th~se uemptions from :he :":SR 

rl!gula lions. 

Appenciix D-Discrepancies and 

lnc:onsiatencin Found in Current SJP"s 

The EPA has rev1ewed a number of 

SIP" 1 and found inconsistenCies and 

discrepencin from established EPA 

policy and pidance. The followina 
agencaes tmplement thetr NSR 

regulations. EPA has found. for example. 

that many ma1or modifications. of 

sources escape preconstrucuon reV1ew 

and tbat lowest acluevable enussaon 

reducuon (1...-\ERI determinations for 

sources subject to NSR are often 

inconsistent and insu!ficiently slrinsenL 

In many cases. these problems may 

result from improper interpretation of 

the applicable rules. To minimaze the 

likelihood that this will occur in the 

fuiW'I. EPA ·mtends to develop pidance 

on such issues as how emissions 

increases and decreases should be 

calculated for nettm1 purposes. when 

and bow implementing asencan may 

use lfOW1h allowances as a substitute 

for offsets. and how to ensure that best 

available control tec:hnoiOI)' and LA.ER 

determinations reflect the best 

tec!mology for the soW'Ce in question 

rather thaD simply the new source 

performance standarda control leveL 

The EPA also intends to increase its 

auditing and enforcement ol State 

programs. 

Sew Source Review Repletions 

The primary focus of the new soW'Ce 

review retulanons IS to evaluate the 

emisSions ampact of new or modified 

source projecu before construction 

commences on the projects. The basic 

requtrement for a new source of air 

polluuon 11 to ensure that 111 emiSsions 

do not cause any new nonattaanment 

s1tuat1ons or exacerbate any exasung nonat1a1nment problems. All sources 

must "prove." g~nerally by modeling air 

quahry ampacts before and after the 

proposed c..,ange. rhat they do not cause 

or conrnbute to any non.1ttamment 

j)roblem. For ma1or new suurees .1nd 

ma1or :nod1ficauons washar.g to lccate •n 

desn;nated nona11a1nment areas. the 

apphcant must also show that the most smr.l!e.,t pollution control equtpment 

!l.A£.~1 is betnll installed. that all other 

sources owned by the applicant wllhtn 

the State are in compliance (Statew•de compliance). and that the emisaaon 

1ncreases are either offset or t<lken into 

account wath an approved growth 

allowance (emisSJon offsets). These 

implement the new source revaew 

reiulationa in conformance w1th EP.a. 

policy: however. States may need to 

correct or clarify some of their 

repletions to avoid possible applicability or enforcement problems 

that may arise under new source rwview 

due to less stringent provisions. The 

followin8 areas are the focus of efforts 

to achieve conformity with EPA policy. 

Exemptions 

Pemrit Conditions: Federal 

requarements state that only federally 

enforceable permit conditions may be 

used to exempt a soW'Ce from the 

requirements for major sources. State 

operatinl permits and State consent 

decrees arw not federally enforceable 

unless incorporated into the SIP either 

through EPA approved case-by-case 

rulemakins or throush • aeneric 

mechanism. State preconstnaction 

permits iuued by States under EPA· 

approved SIP rqulations pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.18. 51.%4. or 51.30. as well as 

constrw:llon permits issued by EPA or 

by delegated Sl<ltes under 5%.%1 arw 

federally enforceable. 

Slate NonottDJnment Designations: The EPA will not permit a State to 

exempt soun:es located in 

nonactaanment areas that the State has 

des•gnated "attainment" wathout EPA 

approval. Similarly. States wall not be 

permatted to use attaann1ent 

demonstrattons that have not received 

EPA approval to determ1ne whether .1n 

offset or nettins transilctaon 11 cons1s1ent 

wuh RFP. 

Ceneral.· States should revtse the~r 

re:;ulattons to rem.:~ve any regul.uury 

provasaons that could be used to e:\e:r.pt 

any source from .1ny ma1or :\:S~ 

requtremenrs. The nnly e:ot.:iuston~ .t>.! 

those contaaned in the Fl!ul!ral 

definations of major sta:t:'"ary 1ou•r.es 

f-10 CFR Sl.165(al(llfivll or m11jor modifications (40 CFR 51.163(H!IlJ(vlJ. 

No source type (e.g .. cottcn g1ns. 

resource recovery facilityJ or source 

claas (e.11. reactivated sources) may 

have a blanket exemption from any new 

source review requirem~tnt. This is a 

problem under the major source and 

major modification thresholds. sance the 

regulations expressly prohtbat the use cf 

the exempnc1ns to e:ocempt any ma1or 

source or ma1or modificanon from ma1cr 

NSR requtretnents. 

Clean Spo•~ E:cempt1on: As a resuit of 

the Aupst 1iiHIO rulemaluns whacn was 

conducted u part of the Alabomo 

Power decision. State regulations cannot 

contain prov:~sions that exempt a source 

from major new source rev~ew 

requirement•, wnl!re the source does not 

"sianificand)• caUie or contnbute to a violation of 1, Nauonal Amb11nt A1r 

Quality Stant:iarci." The August 1980 

requirements subject any ma1or source 

or major modification located in an EP:\ 

designated Dt)nattainment area to the 

major NSR re~quirements regardlt!ss of 

the ambient impact of the source. Some 

SIP's. howevter. still retaan this 

exemption alltd should be reV1seci. 

Offset/Nettin11 Requirements 111 

Of{seu: The EPA requires State 

reguJations tc1 contain enforceable and 

specific cnter;a on the credibality of 

emission red"ctions as offsets. These 

provisions must lftclude a specific. well· 

defined baseline for emassaon 1ncreases 

and decrease:s. a requarement that ail 

emiSsaon redttctions used for oifsets be 

federally enfc1rceable (see secuon on 

perm1t condit110ns .. ooveJ. certain 

rl~!ltm:uons 011 the use of emiss1on 

reduc:tons t:a~::;ed by pl'lor shutJowns 

and curt;ulmenr~ .u off$cts ... nd the 

pmhabiuon of thP. use of 1ny em1ssaon 

reducuons 01lreauv n~clud~d 1n a St .. re 

"'""lnmP.nt d!"naonsrr~ttmn. Tl:! !.1st 

rftuuarement li!ll~u as ro .msure :~c11 a 

!::a•" dOt'S ~"•lll :.~sea reuur.uon rwr:e. i.e .. 

.. ~· .• ; ... ,. r · - 11• • ... ,,,, ur •"';: .. •· .. ••t 

•• •••!"'·,: : •· ''"•'" ltn .. t ,.....,,.,~htft ,,; ,..,~ 

.... ••~o·- .. -.· •••·-••.,1 .1:-'"'lnlf !:"'nfft ~~IP tfttl·oto:J"\ 

...... , .... , .. ••• ;..:• \ ~~ , ... .,) prurth:!.;.tflun ui ... ,: ... .,J '·'M ~ ,1 .. , .. ·.,',,- . :. ·• ...... ._. ""•"'~"' :· ... 

~:1• \. \..1 .. ~Ill! I' r.: r..· f-"••1

•'"'''"'"'' t t-t:~ -: ,, ·•h•t '"··-~ ·~ ' ,,., •. ,,."., ~ .. ..,. ... " .;!'fi·.a.: \ • .:. .... :S. :•Nrtl i tt'Uf'U ...... t f'~\ tnft•f n., ... ,_., \f~~-·1 •• ,J 

unul F.l'-\ ;,~ • ."!v r.~\tM"4 ~:'\It rt·~t•\,a"t ._.._ • .,.::.•na 

uw c-trr.?nt rl'q.,ert~•ll'.-tt•• :-.. m.un '" ,..r .... : 1!"' "'·•~·· 

r.twft~ •ts ,...u .. uu"t ,.., m.-.! ,-. .. ,~ •l'flu!~""'' 

41ftd EP., '""" ........ '"~ ........ \11:'~-fUI l)Ur4Y.If\l 10 lin• C.\1 ... .w•tle"'••ll ~.,,...,...nt. F.P ... wul .;;.,,. 

ll'te $C41n tO (ft41ft1M t~etr 41P:tiiC•ht• fft"u•l••tft'4 .. ~ 

•PIIfOPn••e 
anc:eases and decreases: (3) Federal 

enforceabality of enussiOD.I decreases 

(see secuon on permit cooditions 

above): 1"1 a specific contemporaneou ume frame (up to 10 yean): and (5) the 

prohibi.Lion on Lbe use of any reduC1.ions 

already incorporated in a State' a attainment demonstration (see 

discus11an on aUseUineabove). The 

health and welfare eqwulence 

senerally focuses on the concept of air 

quality: the air quality eff.ects of the 

propased nenm, action mut resul! in 

equ1valeat or inqlroved air quality. For 

''statlle"' pollutants. this places an emphasis on dispersion. For an ozone 

nonanauunent area. the ralative 

reacn~ties of the VOC species also 

plays an important role in air quality 

determinauans. The State 1hould not 

allow a nettins tr8nnctian that causes an increase in a reactive VOC and a· 

decreue in I nqlisibly reactive VQC 

even if the ab1olute unoant of VOC 

emuted does not increase sisnificandy. 

The contemporaneous timeframe ia 

needed to ensure Lbat increases are 

accumulated over 1 reasonable period of 

lime. to discourage constnaction projects 

~:ootempUniJ themselves from NSR. and 

e:"'sure that decreases are not so old 11 

to aiready be taken into account in 

.:llliiinment demonstrations. Also. if a 

rll!t.h.:c:aon occurred a very loniJ time ago. 

t!':at reducuon should IJO towards 

..s~•~llniJ an arl!l to show attainment r1:i':~~ tl'u1n asstsllnfil a source to avoid 

::-;;.,,r :-:sR requtrements. 

O~::;~!t:ons 

~ ·cc. '.:SR rP.!:l:!ataons should use a • ")C: .:e!:n.uon that defines VOC as all •· ··; .. ,.ec compounds e:otc~pt thos~ that 

F.r· '. ~ .. s :isted •n tiS Federal Refiltster r. ... :.r.~s as nonphococ:hemacally reoctive. 

IS.,., VOC defintlion tn RACT 

f"!.!UiiillOftS diSCUSSIOn.) 

Ut!·~r. :'liSR rP.sulauons should contain 

cio,oJr defintttons. consiStent wtth Federal r~:q10arements. for the followcna terms: 

St.,llnnary source: actual em1ss1ons: 

..tllowilble em11saons: fuanive emassaons: cmr.mence or be111n construction: 

Small Sources 

LDt:k of Minor So~• and Minor 

Modifit:tztion R11view: AI required by 

the Federal rules. SIP' a should require a 

review proaram of aU sources of air 

pollution reaardleu of aize. Thia review 

must indude an auurance that no new source ar modification wifi interfere 

with auainment and maintenance of .the 

standard as wen as a requirement that 

all constnactioa projects be subject .to 

public comment procedure. Many States 

only have reqwrernants for major 

sources and major modlfications. Slates 

may only exempt minor so~&rces from 

these requirements if (1) there exiata .a 

federally approved srowth allowance to 

militate resultina increases in emissions 

and ~) State rerulations expressly 

prohibit the use of exemptions to 

exempt any major source or major 

modifications from NSR requirements. 

b. EnsUI'fl Conformity of SIP .. With 

EJcisting EPA Policy 

Althoash most 'SIP rqulations have 

met tbe terms of EPA'a requirement• for 

Part 0 plans. EPA may have approved 

some SIP's containins rules that do not 

meet those requ1rements. 

Some State rqulations controlling 

VOC emissions are beins implemented 

in a manner that is not consiStent with 

EPA requirements and policies and can. in certain cases. significantly anterfere 

wtth the effectiveness of those 

re3ulutions. These amplementahun 

problems appear to be caused b}• 

::~correct or ambiguous definmons. 

\.ilrlilble interpretation. the lack or key 

pro"'IScons (e.s .. comp!ictnce llm~s. t~!lt 

methods. etc.). or spec1Cic pro .... •sions '" 

St:1te regulations that are t:lc:ons1stent 

wllh current EPA policies. In so~e 

c:~ses. th~se problems can interfere wuh 

the States' ability to (1) secure their 

e:oo.pected umlis&ona red:.u;tions from 

sumon11ry source RACT regulations or 

121 control em11saon srowth throuiJh their 

!':SR resulations. ~A plans to work 

wuh States to identafy these problem 

areas and provtde traan•ns. auidance. 

e:tmnpt from thear RACT ru.ies oniy 

those :IOI&rcet falling below certain s1ze 

or thrctughput cutoffs. Other CTG's 

recom:mended no such cutoffs. Some of 

the R.JrCT rqulations now in the SIP's. 

howe">er. establish exemptions wader 

than than recommended in the CTC's 

or pro•nde exemptions so ambtauous aa 

to be s1usceptible to abuse. The EPA wtll 

requi.r!t the States to amend such ru.ies to 

ensure: 1hat these exemptions conform to 

the C'l'C recommendations in aU cases 

except: 1hose for which the State 

provides adequate jutificauon that the 

CTC letvel would impose unreasonable 

requir1aments in that State. 

DefiDi:tion of 100 Tons Per Year Source 

The EPA p.idance has called on SIP's 

for ext:ension areas to require RACT for source:s with the potential to emit mora 

than 1100 tona per year (tpy). but that do 

not fall into a CTC category. Althouah 

EPA ilatended the deranit.ion of source 

for thi:1 purpose to be the entire plant. 

some l)IP's are suscaptible to an 

interpt~tation requinns RAC7 only for 

individual emisaions units emitting more 

than 1100 tpy. Also. some SIP's are 

susce~ltible to 1 readins under which the 

source, must apply RACT only if it has a 

potential to emit mor~ than 100 tpy witn 

controls. EPA intended. however. to 

h;n·e Sit.ues apply RACT to non·CTG 

source'S ~mlltlft~ more than that amount 

wllh0\11 controls. Therefore. EPA mtends 

to reGiure the relevant Stales to ame~d 

\'OC r-.:les that do not ciu~iy rellect 

F.P..s.·s intent. 

Ot!lc:r ls~u~s 

1::,,),11~8 \'OC rules Ci>nt.un a \·;met}' 

of Otht:r itmbtguJIU!S c~nd eump:wns 

tho~t :nn impede elfrJrts to ac:hte\'e !uil 

R .. \CT·ie"·el reduc:ions .. ,lthoush some 

of the alfected State or local agenc:es 

currently interpret these !'\lies 

consistently wnh EPA poiacy. courts w11l 

frequently tum to the actual words of 

the rules to decide the legal obli!lalions 

of the affected sources. For that reason. EPA believes ilts essential for States to 
p

llallon of coalinl untts w1th unata of lbs 

VOC per sallon of solidi. VOC rules 

should state that un1ta of lbs VOC/sal of 

solids be used for all calculations 

involvins emission tradei. cross-line 

averasina. and determanins compliance 

by add-on control equipment such as incinerators and carbon acisorbers. 

Eumpt Solvents: Compliance 

calaalauons for coalinss expressed as lb 

VOC/gallon coatins (less water) should 

treat exempt solvents such aa 1.1.1-

tnchloroeihane and methylene chloride 

as water for PUiliOses of calculatins the 

"less water" part of the coatins 

compoaition. 

VOC Definitions: These rules should 

define VOC as all Of'IIDIC compound. exceptthoae that EPA has listed as photochemically nonreactive in ita 

Federal ReSister notices. Many rules 

incorrectly co~tain a vapor pressure 

cutoff (e.s .. 0.1 mmHaJ that effectively 

exempt• some photochemically reactive 

compoUDds (such as butyl dioxitol. a paant solvent. and certain mineral oils) 

from control The followins definition is a model for use: 

Voiat1/~ OIJflniC: CDtrtpound tVOCI-Any 

oraanac compound wllrcil parlltlpatn '" 

atmo•pllenc pllorocilemacal nracuons: that 11. 

any o~anac compound oilier than those 

wiucil the Admanasrraror dntcnAres '"' hav•n1 

neljiaa:ble pilorochemrcal reac:uvny VOC 

mily ~ meuurP.d by 1 nrfenrnc:e mer!'lod. •n eq:.uvaaonn merhud. an alremauve mttthod or 

by ~roceciunr! soecafi01d under~ CFR P:m 60. 

A !'t!fe~e!"~e me111011. an e~uJVillent merhnd. or an ••ll!~iiiiVI! mf!\hud. howevttr. m;~y ilhiO 

!:\~asurll! ,onnrac:Jvll! ,~.,nat compounds. In 

•uc~ ~a•ll!s. •n own'!r or •Jper;~rnr m•y 

ea•.;<ul! the nonre•c:"·• 'lrtilnlt c:umon11nds wnl!~ ue·~!'!!Un•nc comp!a4nt:t w1:h • 

~- .. ~.;.rd. 

Ot ... ~.- D~>'inmons: A vari11tv ,f other 

dttfi:IIIJDns tn VQC ru!O!S are ;nconSilltent 

Wl:h EPA's crc·s. EPA proposes to 

a\lenufy rhttse defic1enc1es and requare the Stares to remedy them.•• a 

• •• ' '' .... .,. .... ct.f1ntt•.m• of ··ctwttnc .. ,... .. 

'""viO ftnl ... etnpl '"'"' COtltrfli CINIIIfiC llllft lh411 .lo ftOI ~••• O•il• .,,_,, AIIO. d•hlloiiOfll of 

-.frllollltn' "' IIIOICellaMOul ,... .. , CINIIIIIJt ruMI 

e

c

ency and a test method acceptable 

to EPA for determanans actual transfer 

efficaency. (The uae of defaulL assumed 

or table trantfer efficiency values would 

be unacceptable.) This could be done 

eather with pneral or source-specific 

SIP revisions. 

Ctw6 Lint! Av•raging: A source may use c:rossline averasing only upon (11 

EPA approval a• a source-specific SIP 

revision or (%1 State adoption under a 

cross-line averasins or equivalency rule 

that EPA has approved senerically. 

CDmpJionc. Pt!l'iods: VOC rul11 

should describe explictly the compliance 

timeframe aasociated w1th each 

emiuion limit (e.s" instantaneous or 

daily). However. where the nales are 

silent on compliance lime. EPA will 

intei1'NI it aa inttantaneous. The rules 

could include period• Ianser than %4 

hours only in accordance with the 

memorandum from John O'Connor. 

Actina Director of the Office of Air 

Quality Plannina and Standards. dated 

January zo. 1984. entitled "Avera1in1 

Times for Compliance With VOC 

Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy.·• 

and only as source-1pecilic SIP 

revisions. 

Recordkeeping: The EPA would 

require States to amend their VOC I".Jies 

to require explicitly that sources keep 

records needed to assess compliance fllr 

the timeframe spec1fied 1n the rule. 

Records must be comm"naurate w11h 

requlatory requirements anJ mus: IJe 

ava1lable for elltammatmn nn re"lllt·''l. 

Thl! SIP must l!IVe re~porung scht~l.luitt~ 

'"'''''d :n.eA• c..iear th.,r ·:n·la~~·· .,, ·f;n.! .,,i: ="'" 

:"t•p .. tr tJ~ IJrl.ftft•f ... IUtpm.ftt l'!".,ft•J(,tf"ltl~ 11 ft•lf 

,..hn••h•nc. R,.hnt•hu•c "'"' . .; '"' ...... :w~·J ... : .... :-";»:ur.unc ul u"'fll!'d ~mD~··nt. T:te tJttrtnu ... n of 

p .. ,..., cn.une thoui.J be rPtmttd to ..... , .. r~.~ .• , :h.ll 

~~~. '.uMt co.t:f't ,...:ui•t•nns r.u""' ,....,.,.'""'•" 

pl.,.uc (;1111 •nil -o .. lhc ''"' "' ••II .os ""11•• p,,.,..,. •nil j,.bftc cuom:ae •h•ould cnv.., ••rurauun 

fl~r•UIHI• •• WIPU •• liru,;t1y crw~::-2 oltf•r.trutnl. 

\ '""' COAIIII• defo11Uon111 ollu11id "'"•• ~~~"' :fto1t 

-~111101 and plo~tUIIII ~llliUn•• twh ... n ""'"''nn .. Uw 

lwv• COftiiOIIIOhl hllllt or 110 101"""' I c.on"'>l ~ 11"'d 

,., buhhlot ltlllo..,OM '"'"' ""'!II 1tro11:o11• .ol'd 

ltlllt:08Irt1Jt. C...lllllt-uld boo .... foMd Ill oiiChod• 

"func111111al" •• -11 ••II"''"""" or dolr.orau•·• filma. 

require sotJrces to document (1] :~:: :ne 

coalinss manufacturer used euher EPA 

Method %4 or an EPA-approved Stille 

method to calculate the amount of VOC 

per sallon of coaling (less water and 

exempt solvents) and (Zl what meth.,c.i 

the manufacturer used to calculate the 

volume percent solids content of the 

coatinss. 

T•st M•thods: EPA wlil requ1re States 

to amend their VOC rules to requare :he 

use of the molt current test me!nods to 

determine the VOC content oi coaungs 

(e.s .• EPA liteference Method Z~ (l·hour 

bake) or ec1uivalent ASTM Methods!. 

The method uted to determane voiume 

percent sollids should be specific and 

should be 11n EPA-approved method (see 

"Procedures for Certify1n8 Quantity of 

Volatile 0111anic Compounds Emttted by 

Paint. Ink. and Other Coaungs," EP.o\-

450/~9. December 1984). The 

procedurett in outdated ASTM methods 

and the Volume II CTC are generaily no 

lonser acceptable. Procedures should 

specify tha.t EPA or States may ver1fy 

test data submitted by compan1es wun 

independent tests and that EP.o\ or State 

conducted tests w1lltake precedence. 

The EPA will also re~qu1re States :o 

:otmend th1111r VOC rules to sta:e the 

procedures: to be used to measure r.apture dnd control device eificu:nc1~s. 

1-'or Udmp~e. the rules for sume type~ l.li' 

~ources or cuntrnl systt?ms shouiJ 

r:!qu1re the use •Jf temporary enc:lr.su:eo;. 

r.l!!ll!r than miHP.rli\1 bt~lanr:,.~. 1!'1 :.Jptur'! 

,.;;:.-.. •ncv tests. P:o\'is:ons thoit ~··~·11rl! 

"w .. lll!!"ll!lnle"rP.I.i c.1~•ture s~·s:o>~:; · M 

"J:\.P,Jmum reaa;una!:llt! c .• prure · .~ .• ~:J 

be rt!p:"~:e\1 ··"''h •pcr.u'i.: control II'' II~ ll't't:'l l'!lt !1. 

i~_,;,,.-;:u,.~t L.t~':.;. Cvr.·.::,,,,,_•r· ·~·. -:·~,. 

f':'.\ .. ~ •. 111 requ•r"' c<;l.llpn~•·:'lt , .. ,;,. ~rr 

r•!:;ulitllons to he str"nl!thl'nt!J "' .··:!"·i·:~~ 

!.>the 1nten:t uf the CTG's. F\Jr l" . .J:'l';:;~• 

suur::e-1 thil,t ha\·e pre\·1ously l.:l'•'!l 

exempt fro1m monuor~ng requ1re~!:!~ls 

due to line stze or the u•c of piu@ .tnd 

hall \'i.llves should become subti"Ct :o !h .. SIP requirements. In add1t11Jn. SIP's 

shouid not exempt unsafe and 

•nac.cess1ble valves from till per~odic 
percentaaes of vee (i.e .. between 1.0 

and 10.0 percent I contnbutes a 

sagnaficant pon1on of total emasaions 

from natural gas plants and. therefore. is 

sub1ect to RACT requirements. 

E.temptlons and Variances: Manv 

SIP's contain proviSions giv1ng the State 

authonty to grant variances. 

e:otemplions. and altemalive means of 

control stratea1es. SIFs must clearly 

state whether EPA approval of such 

vanances is required on a case-by-case 

baaii before such a variance. exemption. 

or altemallve meacs becomes federallyeffective. Provisrons that are intended to 

be genenc (i.e .. not requiring caae-by· 

case EPA approval for the altemalive 

means to be federally-effective) must 

meet the general principle of 

replicability desc::ibed in EPA's 

Em1ssions Tradins Policy Statement (51 

FR 43814. December 4. 19&eJ •. 

Appeodix E-Guidaac:al Doc:wneot oo 

Echuced liM 

I. Introduction 

The EPA has considered the potential 

for greater vee and co reductions from 

veiucle tnspection and maintenance 

programs. and believes that substa::uial 

er.hancement is available. 

The EPA is considenns a variety of 

opuons relative to enhanced 1/M. 

1::cludina establishiniJ a specific 

e::nancea 1/~ performance level fer 

some :~onat:aanrnent areas as well as 

reiy1::11 on the J l)ercent reduction 

r!t;;oJrl!~e:~r ro force consadernuon or 

r.::::unced l/~1an lieu of a mnnd.ated 

;~·:c~anr.l! reouaremenr. The Iauer 

r;;:::or: wou!t! ailow States to con!lider 

::-1! LJeneiits cf enhat;~ced 1/~. along with 

:::::se of other control measures. in 

~t=c:~m~ how to meei the J percent 

'" l!tOIS:I! annual reduction requarement. T!:e other option toward which EPA :s 

p~o;sl!nt!y lenmtniJ would be to establish 

11 specafic enhanced 1/~ requirement for 

01reas wath relatively serious ozone or 

CO nonattamment problems. The 

remilmder or thiS appendi)t descrtbes 

upects of and issues related to a 

by other meana that do not involve 

enuss1ona measurement. for evidence of 

tampenns or misfuelins. 

The concept of "enhanced 1/M." 

therefore. covers both increases to the 

coverase and stringency of inspection. 

and 1mproved manasement practices to 

asaure full effectivenesa. The 

requirements being considered for areas 

adopung enhanced 1/M are explained in 

detail below. 

//. Bacicground 

In 1971. EPA first established policy 

for the implementation o! the 1/M 

programa required under the Clean AJr 

Act Amendmenta of 1971. Thia policy 

addressed the elements to be included 

in SIP revisiona, minimum emisaion 

reduction requirementa. adminiatntive 

requirementa. and schedules for 

implementation. Approvable 1/M 

prosrama were to be in place in all 

ozone and CO extension areaa by the 

end of 1982. and were to produce at 

least a 25 percent reduction in light-duty 

vehicle hydrocarbon exhaust emisaiona 

and at least 3 percent reduction in CO 

exhaust emis11ons as of the end of 1987. 

At this lime. there are 1/M programs 

operating in 60 urban areas in 32 States. 

There are a variety of program designs 

in place. some wh1ch just exceed 

manimum levels. and some whach 

contnan additional measures to achie\·e 

greater emassion reducuons. The EPA 

audits of 1/M prosrams O\'er the !nst J 

yenrs have •dttnttfied both considerable 

acccmpl:$hments by State and loc:al 

asenc:es 1n ampiemenung programs 

suc:c:es:;f:Jlly. 11nd a number of operata~~~ 

;:~roblcms. These audit finciin-:s sen:e as 

the biiS;s for the i:tcrensed st~:n;enc:y 

and rhe additional adm~ntst~alive 

r~q:.;art'me:tts assoc:ated wi:h e!thanced 

I i :\I. 

Ill. :;""" Fru1

or.r.anca S::mdn:d 'or ~ ·oc 

a:1d CO Reduc:1or.s · 

The Er.'\ has deu1o;led a computer 

model whic.'t it proposes to use to assess 

the benefits of vanous 1/~ prosram 

desasns. e~pressed as annual tons of 

o

of the enhanced ;~ror.ar::. 

This level represents the desa@n ;eve 1 c: 

the third moat stnngent of 111e ::; or so 

distinct liM programs currentiy 1n 

operation. A.. discussed 1n the preami:lie 

or this policy. EPA IS aiso r:ons:denn, 

other performance levels whtc.'l couid be 

established. if a separate enhanced I!~ 

requirement is adopted. The !eve! of 

performance descnbed above wowc! be 

equbralent to the following deSign: 

-c.~ntralized biennial inspections 

-zo model years of passenger can and 

!ish t trucka 

-zo percent stringency for pre-1981 

vehicles 

-Idle test 

-za.r{b) cutpoints for 1981- vehicles 

(l.Z percent C0/220 ppm HCJ 

-c.-..talyst. inlet. and lead deposit 

iJu:pections on 1981 + vehacles 

-s ~·ercent waiver on the emuaum 

sht~i1 test 

Pro11~ams which vary from this desiiZI 

yet have equivalent emassion reductions 

would be acceptable. For example. 

decentralized biennial inspectioDS 111d/ 

or fe•wer model years of r:overa1e a" 

also allowed. provaded other features of 

the program de111n are stren~tllened 

suc.'l that the estimated benefit :neetS 

the new performance standard. 

Prt1g:ams may show equ1vaienc:y to 

thts clesasn usang etthe~ nauonal or locol 

con.!:uons of tampennai mtsiueitng 

r:-.:es. '·ehtc!e type m:x. avera~e speed. 

C!!C. t."se or !OC3f COftQI::OI:$ ~.tV ~es;:il ::: 

.1 ;:c~:o~:-::.1nr:e standnrd d:irt!~P~t :::Jn 

5;'00/G9.000: tn all cases. equava,l!nc:y ::J 

t!-.e OJt.ove de:ug:l wouid !:le t~e 

tc::t~cl!::l~ ~::te~tnn f<Jr <l;::'i)ro,·Jl. 

1"!':,~ new c:ompurer :node! ~as :wo 

t.:..ai!.:res wh:c!-: we:e nor :::r:!u.:!cd '" ~ICSIU:J but whar:h q~pw 01:: .Ji the ;:;;<: 

J yeurs oi evai~ar:::g -o;:oe~alln' 

pro11r:rns. f':rst. f&Jr pur;:~oses oi Si? 

itpj:rCI\"31. decentrala:ed pregr:Jr.":S w.;! 

be C~t!ti:ted wt:h identafy1ng anu 

re~a.t~tn; elttS!Ing t•mpenn, at a r::ue 

'"hach is less than t!'!at :notieled for 

c:enmahzed pro8fams. The anaual 

nnalysas suaests a reduced