## Ungvarsky, John From: Ungvarsky, John Sent: To: Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:40AM Ungvarsky, John Subject: Email record re YSAQMD rules

From: MattJones <mjones@ysaqmd.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:59PM To: Ungvarsky, John Subject: RE: Following Up to our May30 call The 1994 inventoryforYSAQMD was approximately0.46 tpd VOC. From: Ungvarsky, John [mailto:Ungvarsky.John@epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:01 PM 

### To: MattJones Subject: RE: 

### Following Up to our May 30 call Hi MattThis is very helpful. RE 2.26, are you sayingthe reduction orthe inventory was 0.46 tpd? Thanks John Ungvarsky Environmental Scientist USEPA, Region 9 75 Hawthorne St. (AIR-2) San Francisco, CA 94105 415-972-3963 510-667-9743 (alternate work site) 

### From: MattJones [mailto:mjones@ysaqmd.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:57PM To: Ungvarsky, John Subject: RE: Following Up to our May 30 callJohnIn response to your questions: 1. The 80% reduction was from a0.23 tpd inventoryforourdistrict from this category in 1999. 2. For Rule 2.26 -In the staff reportforthe most recent amendment, itspecifically gives an estimate of0.12 tpd VOC reductions from the amendment to Rule 2.26 alone. However, it looks to me like thatwas acombination of lowered VOC limitsforthe coatings (coatings limits were kept in the rule) and reductions in VOC from the solvents used by the automotive refinishing industry in ourdistrict (the solvent limitswere taken outofthe auto 1refinishing rule, and lowered solvent limitswere added to the district solvent rule). So essentially the 0.12 represents lowered limits forthe coatings and solvents used by auto refinishers in the YSAQMD. 3. For Rule 2.26- the estimated VOC from this category in ourdistrict in 1994was 0.46 tpd. OK, hopefully that clears things up a bit. I understand that#2 (above) might be a little confusing, but ifso, just let me know and I'll try and do a betterjob explaining. Thanks, Matt 

### From: Ungvarsky, John [mailto:Ungvarsky.John@epa.gov] 

### Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:28PM 

### To: MattJones 

### Subject: RE: Following Up to our May 30 call Thanks MattSee my comments below. Thanks John Ungvarsky Environmental Scientist USEPA, Region 9 75 Hawthorne St. {AIR-2) San Francisco, CA 94105 415-972-3963 S10-667-9743 (alternate work site) From: MattJones [mailto:mjones@ysagmd.orgl Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:15 PM To: Ungvarsky, John Subject: RE: Following Up to our May 30 call Hi JohnFunny, Iwasjustworking on this when you sent the email.

.. Here is what I have found so far: For Rule 2.39- We did notestimate a VOC reduction in the 1999 staff report, butwe did estimate that we would reduce total emissions from this category by 80% as a result ofthe rule adoption. JU comment: 80% reduction from_tpd estimate in inventory. For Rule 2.26- Forthe most recent rule amendment (2008), we estimated a0.12 rons-per-day VOC reduction as a result ofthe rule amendment. JU comment: The 0.12 tpd is notfrom 2.24/2.31, right? Forthe prior rule versions, we did not estimatetotal VOC reductions. In the analysis thatwas conducted forthe 1994 Regional Ozone Attainment Plan, we did estimatethatwe would accrue a 75% total reduction in VOC from this category as a result ofthe 1994 rule. JU comment: 75% reduction from_tpd estimate in inventory. OK, 1hope that helps- please just let me know ifthat's notthe kind ofinfo you are looking for.

2Matt From: Ungvarsky, John Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:17 AM To: 'MattJones' Cc: Tong, Stanley Subject: RE: Following Up to our May 30 call Hi MattThanks for getting back to me. Ithinkwe are almost on the same page, but not quite. For Rules 2.26 and 2.39, Iam also tryingto figure outthe reductions from the pre-2002 rules already credited in the plan. Rule 2.26 was revised 4times (i.e., Nov 9, 1994; Aug 13, 1997; May 14, 2008; and Dec 10, 2008) compared to the Apr 1994version in the SIP. Is the 0.058 tpd from the Dec 2008 revision? Assuming so, whatwerethe reductions from the Nov 1994 and Aug 1997 changes? For Rule 2.39, whatwere the reductions from the initial adoption in Feb 1999? Please let me know ifyou'd like to discuss further. Thanks John From: MattJones [mailto:mjones@ysaqmd.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:53AM To: Ungvarsky, John Cc: Tong, Stanley Subject: RE: Following Up to our May 30 call Hi JohnI looked into the emissions reductions associated with the rules you listed. For the most recently adopted ozone attainment plan in our nonattainment area (adopted in 2009), a base year of2002 was used, butemissions forecasts extended outto 2018 in orderto demonstrate attainment. Based on the relevant staff reports, emission reductions from the rules are as follows: Rule 2.26- Auto Refinishing: We estimated 0.058tons perday ofVOC reductions from this rule by 2018. These future reductions were accounted for in the most recent ozone attainment plan. Rule 2.39- Wood Products Coating Operations: The emissions reductions associated with this rule would h9ve been incorporated intothe 2002 emissions baseline in the most recent ozone attainment plan, since the VOC limits went into effect priorto 2002. The rule was amended in 2008, butthe amendmentdidn't lowerVOC limits for coatings, itjust removed the VOC limits forsolvents and putthose limits in aseparate solvent rule. Rule 2.44- Central Furnaces: This rule was adopted afterthe emissions forecasting was conducted forthe most recent ozone attainment plan. Consequently, the emission reductions are not reflected in the Plan's 2018 emissions forecast. We estimate thatthe rule will result in NOx reductions of0.026 tons perday by 2018. 301<, I hope that helps to answeryour questions- please just let me know ifthere's anything else I can clarify. Regards, MattJones Supervising Air Quality Planner Yolo Solano AQMD 530-757-3668 mjones@ysaqmd.org 

### From: Ungvarsky, John [mailto:Unqvarsky.John@eoa.gov] 

### Sent: Monday, June 

### 09, 2014 

### 9:08 AM 

### To: MattJones Cc: Tong, Stanley 

### Subject: Following Up to our May 30 call Hi MattAs a follow upto our May 30 call, can you please provide me with an estimate ofthe reductions achieved from the following measures? I need this information forthe notice ofproposed rulemaking I am working on forthe Sacramento ozone plan. My understanding is that reductions from Rules 2.26 and 2.39 have already been credited in the baseline 2018 emissions inventory in the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area plan. 1also understand that reductions from Rule 2.44 have not been credited in the 2018 baseline. Are these also your understandings? • Rule 2.26 (reductions compared to Apr 1994version in the SIP. See

·http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/AgencyProvision/4F6F8C07558E6B41882569A5006EE2D4/$file/ YS+2.26.PDF?OpenEiement) • Rule 2.39 (not in the SIP) • Rule 2.44 (not in the SIP) Please let me know when you might be able to providethis information to me. Thanks John Ungvarsky Environmental Scientist Air Planning Office, Air Division USEPA Region 9 415-972-3963 (primary office) 510-667-9743 (alternate work site)

4