-------
o
«— 1
o
I/)
0)
01
rO
a.
2
z
3
;
ft
£
fS
t/>
M
C
i
o
u
UJ
M
C
O
o.
§
X
UJ
c
3
of
ec
O
^J
E
a
0
.
Ol
2
L.
O
Ol
01
ro
U
01 01 01 r—
M f 1. r- I
•
«- -o o x oi
ai 3 *J oi on—
4-> Mr— OI.C S
o « o c ••-> oi t.
Z * X-r- 0
01 £ E t- C
O) a. M o 3 o
•«-+» 01 V 01 *»
r- M C -O ><*-
o a. ai 10 c
M > -a 41 o o
IOr— C U W CM
i • o a a v
O M CM
oivl u. c +> i
c Vo oi <*-
i- >>i- CM O. Ol
c -w -HO o e
a •*- i. v| —if-
01 ^* O ^ N/l Wl
r--^ -a oi ' "• .C Ol r— T3
U O
19
1—
U
1
t. 01
ia c
r- U> 1-
•»- ° S
M O t.
i aiczi
Ol ra U
c •— -o
•»- -r- 01 O
C E N 4->
01 "v> T L.
r- O 10
0 1 >,—
2 g II
Or— O M
U O O
V-
O— •
^^
in— .
we.
Ol
c
•r-
C
01
u
a
H
c
"o
o
i.
Q.
O C
4J E 01
u a S c *»
o c u u -r- c
> O i- 01 E 01
T- — *j c -u f- E
It- *> O.r— -t- Ol 1- *3
O "O o. ra U O ro
U ra -C *» 0 41
ai f a. c c t- i.
Er- «O M 0) O O •!->
SO 10 C L) H-
r— O 01 O 41
O -0 t. -0 00 J- 0
> 3 Ol gf- O 10
>, m u a Or— Ol k.
XI X ro 0) rB C 3
1 t- £ «9 JC f- «
** > a a. x
OO C "»- M M f- C
.oz 2o»,E^
0) IO 01
S >, o >» vi
O t- V. 0 fc. 0 3
t— 01 10 *O
r— Ol r—
« C M E V> «!
O 41-r- 41 O E
4-> r— U L. U C C
f— M 01 O. 41 O
ro C 41 C CMC
X: O •• Ol « 41
M4J Ol I- -^ M f- ra Ol
a « f o ra i- T3
i- X •!-> -C -H *> C
T3 41 M4JCIOM3
01 CXT3 C O O C
<>- M r— 6 •** S C
M C O,r— O O T3 1-
r— -r- TJ -* -r- ro M
§>OIUCr— +>L.M
«> *» O "J O. 41 t-
O.-M *» C Q. 4. M E
f- M *J ra O 3 01
>> J- S
r— O C -^* *— * ^
C <*- 41 r— CM CO
o a.
XI— •>.
^5H
IA ^—«
Wd
^J
F—
0
CL
«1
U
2
3
«
2
Q.
a.
i.
o.
0
/v
u
§
u
g
1
O >> t- M
•M ro O Ol
•a a. i- -p
*J Ol 3 C
(- U» L. -O «
Or— 41 0
t- • U CO
41 *> O **
r-f- U Ol
J3 X 01 C O
a Ct- *»
C -X VI
VI 41 Ol r—
«r— C i. .O
Su r|3
>,« Bl&
U O. «r- U
41 41 C XU
> I- O.O ra
ui £
o
4*
•a ra
41
UtC
Jra
-
c
41
ra
s!
.,0
gj
o> c
c >
c -o
••- c
30
u
-1
-------
o
FH
o
vo
01
Ol
IO
a"
I-H
3
oc
Ul
r-
S!
VI
+J
c
c
g
5
§
•F-
U
^J
Q.
Ul
Ul
c
o
1
X
Ul
+J
At
g
3
1
o
«->
•F-
•F-
_J
Ol
5
to
o
z
01
^^
o
01
Ol
IO
Ol
•M
o
z
Ol
01
01
IO
£
a.
a.
in
"oi
O Ul
Ol 01
C 01 >
•F- c >>
f T- n oi
Ul *•> "O C
•F-
01 *• t- 01 <»-
F- a E > «
o k 5 k
Ol O 3 V f-
» 0 «C
13 13
F- 01 01
01 F- .0
13 JQ in "~
01 F- O
*——~ • k i k k
k <*> 41 Ol 1 Ol
CO Ol *J 01 *» -M
• *> 1 10 0 « Ul «
*Sui* 5 *C *
* m n c
i k ui E UI-F- u-
in at 3 k 3 *» 3
c C-O-£H--F- o-£
'"•£ . E ui° E
« E ^ "^ S.""' k ^*
o ana oi oiat oi
u c c at c f c
a « o a k a «
aiOko*>OF-o
F-UOOXOF-U
O O(
Ol
T- 3
•U O
SOI
c
o «
O Ol Ul
10 U 4-1
14- u> k
1 >w Ml
5* *
Ol
o
z
Ol
Ol
"O
o
k
a.
a.
|s
oi «i *»
•v- 41
4>* 7 C
k O
• IO O.
010 6
c Ji S
"5 41
Ul U 3
ill
X O 10
Ul
8 «
• a ^- o
F- o -O IO
•v. o •— 1»-
J3 k
F- t-r- CO
C « C \ -F-
•O O -~ JZ U.CM
0. 0 U.r- •!-•
Ol —i '*-
•O H-F-O O"-
41 O IO • « O
*-> k CMH- Ul O
CCsl ^-^i1- UIO
"k H- 10 UI^F^
—5
— 'CM
in —
H- Ol
C dt
10 a.
o
U "O
41 O
U *
10 *J
t- IO
3 U.
01
o
z
ai
Ol
«
£
a.
<
M
41
Ul M
^j ^L
^
ll
•f 0
Ul*.
r control sj
X efficient
15
o
in
13
U 41
•<•> 3
3 *->
41 U
O 10
§<«-
3
C
a.
IO
Ul
x a.
*>
•F- F"
U •
a v
si
^ J.
10 *»
li
V
1
-§ -g 2g^
CTW *•> >
JE ^ ^^
S s\\
3 C £ C 4I-F- X Ul 41 Ol
uio ** « 4-> a. ui >» -F- in
mo in *J ui ui F- •»
eX XF- X 4» V *»
41 Ul Ol Ulr- k 41 kF-f
°-« ? C > C Ul 41 ff ^
"OH- pkO O « J< Z- **
Ck Eok-OUr-lO3Ol
03 +->*»4-»4IO»«4IUI«k
Ul CUICOIkjaF-U> o
in oi ook 4t u a.
S5«S -o ° «- Jl a.8.c a>" *
o « a> 010 3 « 10
k k ui Ul C C Q.UI > >
O. 41 <•->«' T- -r- M
O.C-F- 3F- >
ofg§?=: ' ' '
h- ecu.
-------
o
4-
0
"""•
01
Ol
Q.
5
i
2
ui
1—
Wl
c
• e
§
CJ
§
*J
U
**
^f
CL.
UI
Wl
X
UJ
^
c
£
3
I
O
•r-
01
*»
a
CO
S
en
>^
§,
2
10
c
o
•*-
*J
5 §
c +»
Ol *^ Wl
•0 Wl >,
CO.WI
i°s§
t> 1° <3
>> 3 +'| «
Wl U Wl
•O *» C
t— > «> 0)
S^s. -O
01 *» e
+* ^ 01 O
•• C 3 Wl U
41 0 Wl
Ol O Wl *» *»
>
•w a.
Wl M
> 1 1
*
0
2
u oi— ••
*> a at
3 *> 3
01 u c
u
§H- <->
3 C
C 0
^*
!. <
Wl O T9
>l O Wl Ol
Wl t. 1. -M
•O e
C OIOI-O •*•
O C ** 01 «8
f--^ U Q.
i. O Ol O C
o»— •— o «o
WlH- O «
•o J: wi
t- u
3 e
wi a.
•o wi
•^ wi O.ID
T,ii
a-u
.. 0 «-•»
r~ t— ai Q.
V. C O
o
ex
a.
— a
rtread,
Beading
01
-a t.
5°
•o
in
£
•?5
v- u
(O
Ol 3
.a c
1*
|
*A ^
^> IO
VI
2 * £ ^
4J M *1 ^
§ S I w, S
o2"^ o £5<»-
CH-> I •• Q. Q.-UT-
« Q. oi 10 wi a.
>UC _C > 㣤
ct)5 a c w»-o*>
•r-'l-OIQ. i- A fc-
ueaiNco u cat
•»- Q C t- •»- UOC
,
OO 1 1 01 Wl 1 1 1
ai
L.
O
-------
o
00
I
0.
o
u
o
z
u
o.
CX
I/I
C
o
•— V. -O
f i at 4)
01 c *» •»•»
•r- O +•> *»
J= C 41 i-
Okf)< W
CO 1.
••j— ^^ Q (J
3^' £ 2
m *> f— a. oi>-
U> i. OHJ
41 VI 41 O C O
O JX ••-> £ ••- O
O C « *> U f-1
I.-.- If- Q.V
M
in
a
"
a o-»-f- « T
o» t- -^ o» s <-> is
B OIM a 5-r- <"
•»- O
i- U.
a.
0>
£
O
o>
01
£
o
41
O
at
X
«9
I
a.
o.
41
••-> >>
•a >
U f 01 O
o c
f— f- 41
'o'c ^>>J<
•— C 41 j: 3 BCM O C
1
s*,-.;^
SO 41 •
C M-0
if— coo r- y N' c %-
_ ft. O
*» C -^ w eL— z >5 5 ° S S S
§t- U 41 £;« •— -t-> 3 41
4> * C-w 41 ....
>—t-WlfcO>^>»><'>* 4*O4*U
O O 3 f- U •Mft.O CXi- C C
*
Ol
c
•o 5
•S3
at
"o
t o o
*> 4-> O
« at
A.
i
-------
o
>*-
o
01
1
Q.
*> i- C 4!f-
C 4)i— 41 M 1--5+-"— C
41 > O S3 *J "O I. in O -O 41
> ^- L. O -O C « « m 4) •—
r- o -M 4) ^41 •— 41 M U > CIO
o in c L. ^-u >4>M ja a >
MOO S O •— 01-^- 0>— 41 -^
H- (J <»- O E CJ O T3 T3 C i—3
**-O 41 OO CMM-v- >r-CMU(T
O b^l CM 4J V. U 41 U • 41
Olt- J- E C'5l-4!l-IO<«-a>X-C4l
-^ « Q. •• > E *J •— -O r— O 4>
•OL.E M ^-Or**O4>C 6 41 ^— T)
41 ** o O 4) Ok*^M4^O *9> ** (J *^
41 !»• »— <^^ M JQia-WkMM^C
•OU V|C -3 i> 41 J=<— X«f>t4l>— O
•^ C *J OX ,— +J +J (. MM U
3 5 e 41 •«- «\ u CM *> *j ^- MO
VOVU<^*^ lAlOIOfOtt^-CSJ^OCSJW
•r- > t- 3 4> inSo)-MS-^/s|c^- r— -W vl VI U. <
X C 4I»- —
O « i— "O *O *^-
z £ u.
4)
2
41
C
41
">,
4J
f!
e o
bl
o"-
"5
!
a.
a.
i
+J E f— M
k U "O *> M *»
S4I M C JC f
in u o 4) u o»
• u a. E 3 1-
C .C O -r- t. *> 1
a on-> M -a i- «-
f- « 3 M O
•o *> .* -o o->> o.
4) 1 -J 10 C 41 « <0
C«-UJ4l«l-'O>
IB 4) ^** ** O M ^ O
E^>vcai4>jcc
4ti~ U *»
. O •••->— £Xi- O
•a *» o o o x *»
41 c exu E
c-o o 5 UT>
o>i— u E *- *> *- e
t- w 5 o M a 3
M-^W C. a. >> 0.0
C2
m —
c
41
C M
M i.
O
-------
i- gj «o oi
--1 •• VI C r- OI £
—. C O 4J
di T- O VI VI VI «*»
^*> 01 C p
o *••- «-
•o <*» •o o *>
C • r- - C
a r-» vi c O
i- <4- 10 O
OI
VI C
a o
OI Z>
£ U
> l/l VI
.~. 01-
u u <
«-* I- Q.
0,0 -g
MO > 1-
O "O 01 01
hi- OI
O h *> OI 0) h
i*- o o. ^a -o
*.-| .? £
O. C X U I «
OI O 41 C *>
Oi- « C • -^
X *» VI i- « VI «
01 O.-T- •—,— -p at
•.Z. E f. O. O. C h
S <-» E « Q
^~ VI E
« h C AC f
^•0)0 <0 41 C U
1C C i- <-> E O T-
in 01 ** o. 01 •<- of
• OI « Olt— VI
« U U Q. VI 41
» -o *» ** >> c
«^v VI IO 10 41 f
*— > 3 -c e .c
ifi"^ ^h*3 £
c -o c •!-> O "5 'o
-A~ -- ^
^.^^ a o> o
inja h o ai E
tn^-' • 01.— c ^
• h co *^* ^*
•* hf OI C»- «
o vi oix: 01
.•IK >^ u 01
*-* J* VI 41 C O
«• *»^- -p +»i- Q
~_- o. h *j 5
-^ O) oo «o>« ->j
a u -o c o o u
^- XS- Ci-U CMC
S"° 5^^ v^
. ^^ . VI O U VI U
^SJ c°S 5r
§^—T3 O *> *> ja . vi ai c •—
*Jr~r- h— VI *>-r- -^»*
um u f-c> oo
ai • o < Eo« « vo.
COWL'S U1U£ U-^|
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
Chapter 16-20
Regulation XXI - Emissions of VOCs from storage of petroleum liquids in
fixed roof tanks
Regulation XXIII - Emissions of VOCs from bulk gasoline terminals
Regulation XXIV - Emissions of VOCs from petroleum refinery sources
-------
41
Ol
41
C.
C
Z
CO
o
t-
LU
X
UJ
_J
^c
UJ
z
UJ
o
01 >>
^1
=•3
•o
S3
4J
'c<«-
U
JZ fc.
X +»
IO VI
C 1-
•olo
C f
to L.
* Ol
•- E +•»
•o vi
§1*
z o. £
sJL
tn ^c
ac •• 3
•-I UJ UJ
So
u
I/)
LU (— U
3 Z •—
Z CL
uJ — 2
££§
V)
c
0
c
o
!JJ
u
OL
UJ
VI
c
o
+J
1
X
UJ
c
I
o
1
Ol
*->
IO
10
o
•
O*
oc
o
Ol
o
CM
Ol
o
z
Ol
Ol
CO
•o
—•1C
v» o a
VI I- (.
VI f— "^ Ol Q
C IO O Ol
« VI 010 <-> -O
•U 41 O VI 3
4! I» §"" o 0
OI--0 X+J
IO U * "O
1. 10 tO SO XI Ol
O CXi— • 41 U
*» "O ^ r— VI 3
in Ol
C ^-
3 S--
i— VI *» «
C>— >> 01
(. 0 VI >
41 v •
*J VI >>4-> E
c a w u Oi
f- J= Ol Ol *>
>>
*J O U Ol VI
•»- ^- 41
X -c I- >>•—
^*u^2
*3 O CX 3 C
er o «J cr o
LU U > 41 U
41^^
1 « <0
3
- j<
§4.S
01 OIH-
Sf- U-
o o
+J *> O
41 I/) OC
O.
o
*j
t.
CX
41
10 ll
in 01
CH-
32
§2
0*>
>, VI
4J 1. .— 0)
^- 01 ^- vi
t *> > IO 3
01 CX O
C +* O IO IO
f* C X ^Z 3
4^ *^ Ol *• XI +•*
ST, .>S!^
f— O v» O
H- O WO •— C
OIC Ol 01-
J= i- CX
<-> oi c ex 01 e
T- > 41 T- k 01
X <0 CX 3 10 J=
J= 0 o- X
•o oi *»
41 TSi- 10 •£
Q.I— <— MJ= CX
CX 3 « C *> 41
*r~ O ^* O
3 J= 41 I..— 41
41 «J "O 3 i
c o c *> t-f-
« t-
• j?
SX
i — '
J3 CM
3 O
*° w
CM
41
O
Ol
X
I/I
§
It VI *»
O O i- >>
co u in
1. 01
Its emissions of
nsable VOCs from
rs. hot wells, o
ulators at refin
vacuum producing
ja oi O E
JE C C O *>
2O 41 0 •—
0 -0 10 X
0-
3-
1 «O
3 r-
O
•
**
X
X
vt
41
S
VI 3
I5
C ^
r— 41
SC
^0?
^_
F"
iui
VI *J
c2^«
2«o > C *»
X U*C 41
~^ 41 0
r- 41 CX X
t- J3 O 41
O
ID
CM
O
*
oi * a
•j- ja S c t
•o-o AS c
CM f-
c p r— e «< •
o C o a C o en
o"c o<£ t- v|
*3*'uQ-o,
41 M O1O 011-
IM VI C C 3
E U Z> k *C M
•*- p C lOi- Ol
C £ 41— 10 1-
•^- CX>H- *» Q.
JQ1
^•^k
a
CO
»
-------
CM
0
CM
Ol
01
1C
Q»
<
*"H
%
1— t
g
•"-«
»
t—
t/>
Ul
3
.,
£
tf
P
VI
c
o
u
• c
o
4->
U
1
X
Ul
4-*
C
I
J-
o
*J
E
Z3
01
*>
IO
*»
(/>
o
Ol
01
ae
>i
C
o
Ol
01
4->
d
U
CM
5
O
X
Ol
01
IS)
Ol
c c
•*• J- 0
Ol O
c v> c >>
** 10 • 10
«J I. >,
i- o> a c
Hi0"0-
«v ^™
•»- 01 01
vi -* c je
01 O
u ao * t-
<-•>,• 3
3 VO C i— O
O /\ « ^|£
^-
^^
Ol
E
o *»
OOO «0r-
C -C >s.
i- TJ *> Ol
b Ol E
3 01 B
T3 O • Ol O
x -o *> oo
vi 01 01 vi /s
o -o >»
O 0 « in X
» +> o o
*fr* +* O *~
O O -M L. 10 •
C O ** VI
VI 3 C 4-> C
c oi-o ooo
o e o o c f
•*" -^- U Irt
vi -o CL k Ol
u
4-> t.
VI 3
01 O
X M
..
«-l
O
Z
.
t.'
Ol
•o
•o
01
i.
Ol
JC
*j
4-
£
C
O
*J
o
H-
C
"io
C
O
i-
*>
•9-
t>
,
Ol
t—
•
IA
§
i-
•w
IO
3
Ol
01
i-
01
VI
01
4J
•o
Ol
>
2
Q.
«
O
C
IA
IO
S.
*t
a.
Ul
>s
CM
Ol
4J
0
-------
Appendix 2.0
Transfer Efficiency Guidelines
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
EPA REGION III
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY DETERMINATION GUIDELINE
November 26, 1986
Prepared by: Robert J. Blaszczak &
Bohdan Mykijewycz
-------
Table of Contents
I. Objective Page 1
II. Applicability and Implementation Page 1
III. Definitions Page 2
IV. Applicable Standard Methods Page 5
V. Number of Coated Products to be Page 6
Considered in the Test
VI. Number of Coatings Used in the Page 6
Test
VII. Number of Coating Lines to be Page 7
Tested
VIII. Size Considerations Page 7
IX. Shape Considerations Page 7
X. Establishing Operating Parameters Page 8
XI. Coating Characteristics Page 8
XII. Measurement of the Amount of Page 9
Coating Used
»
XIII. Purge Page 9
XIV. Test Conditions Page 9
XV. Apparatus Page 9
XVI. Establishing Baseline TE Page 10
XVII. Procedures Page 12
A. Lab/Tin Foil Method Page 12
B. Historical Method Page 14
C. Weight Method Page 15
D. Volume Method Page 20
-------
XVIII. Changes in Method of Operation, Page 24
Equipment/Process Modifications
and other Changes
XIX. Retesting Page 24
XX. Recordkeeping Page 24
XXI. References Page 25
-------
Region III Transfer Efficiency Determination Guideline
November 26, 1986
I. Objective
The objective of this guideline is to provide an accept-
able procedure to make an accurate assessment of the amount
of coating solids deposited onto the surface of a coated
object relative to the total amount of coating solids used.
It also describes the demonstration that must be submitted
in support of a source specific SIP revision for an alternate
or equivalent method of compliance or to establish emission
credits based on improved transfer efficiency (TE).
II. Applicability and Implementation
This guideline applies to sources that propose to
demonstrate compliance with applicable violatile organic
compound (VOC) coating regulations or to establish VOC em-
ission credits based on improved TE. Where the applicable
State SIP does not explicitly provide for compliance or
emission trading based on TE, this guideline describes the
procedures which must be implemented and the testing which
must be accomplished to support the required SIP revision.
Where TE is explicitly addressed in a SIP but no test method
or compliance determination procedure is indicated in the
SIP, this guideline indicates the procedure which should be
implemented to document compliance or credit. EPA Region
III will use this guideline, where appropriate, to confirm
emission credits and compliance.
A facility proposing a compliance program based on TE
must develop a source specific test protocol to demonstrate
compliance or show the amount of credit realized by improved
TE over a baseline period; submit the protocol to the
appropriate regulatory agency for approval; perform the
test procedure in accordance with the approved protocol;
and, submit the test results with a full engineering
description and analysis of the actual test and the results
to the appropriate regulatory agency. Any variations from
the approved protocol should be fully described and the
reasons for any variation should be stated. Compliance
determinations and credits will only be accepted if they are
supported by real, source specific data indicative of actual
operating and production conditions. Except under very
limited circumstances involved with the establishment of a
TE baseline, (see Historical Method, Section XVII B) estimates
of TE based on equipment manufacturer's suggested values
or any other technical analysis which is not supported by
source specific data is not acceptable.
-------
III. Definitions
- applied coating solids - The volume of dried or cured
coating solids which is deposited and remains on the surface
of the coated object (target).
- air atomized spray - Spray coating method in which the
coating is atomized by mixing it with compressed air before
the coating leaves the nozzle.
- airless spray - Spray coating method in which the
coating is -somized by forcing it through a small opening at
high pressure. The liquid coating is not mixed with air
before exiting from the nozzle.
- air flow rate - The amount of air circulating through
a spray booth. Air is circulated to keep the levels of
combustibles below the lower explosive limit (LED and/or
to comply with OSHA standards.
- automatic electrostatic spray - Electrostatic spray
applied by a robot or other self-acting mechanism where an
electrical charge acting as an attractive agent draws the
coating to the nearest ground (substrate).
- atomizing air pressure - The air pressure delivered to
the applicator nozzle to atomize the paint (coating) as it
leaves the applicator nozzle.
- application equipment - The equipment used to apply the
coating to the target. This generally consists of the spray
head and any associated piping, and electrical components
for electrostatic operations.
- baseline data - Data which relates the quantity and
composition of coatings and associated thinning and purging
solvents, with the application equipment and other parameters
necessary to determine the VOC emissions and TE of coating
equipment on any coating line(s) during a specific baseline
period.
- baseline TE - The TE of application equipment in use
during the baseline period within a specific industrial
category. Baseline TEs have been established for use with
the emission limits recommended in certain control techniques
guidelines (CTGs). The baseline TE for automobile and light
duty truck guidecoat and topcoat operations is 30%. The
baseline for large appliance and metal furniture coating is
60%. Although EPA has not established TE values for sources
covered by the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
-------
Parts CTG, it suggests a default value of 60%, except where
higher TEs are likely (e.g., interior coating of tanks,
drums, tubes, etc.). The default value may be used if the
source chooses not to do a baseline test or insufficient
information exists to determine a baseline TE.
- baseline equipment - Application equipment in use during
the baseline period.
- baseline period - The twelve (12) month period immed-
iately preceding the date a State adopted an applicable VOC
coating regulation.
- base coat - Generally the first color coat, over a primed
target, of a two coat operation.
- clear coat - Generally the final coat applied over a
base coat.
- coating application pressure - See paint/coating
application pressure.
- coating solids - The nonvolatile component of any coating
being used.
- compliance coating - Coatings which meet the regul-
atory limits specified in approved air pollution control
reaulations.
- electrostatic spray application - An electrical charge
supplied at a controlled voltage on an electrode at the spray
gun tip creating an attractive force drawing the paint toward
the nearest ground (substrate).
- film thickness - The thickness of the dry cured coating
on the substrate. Film thickness varies with applicatic i,
but coatings on metals generally range from 0.5 to 4.0 ^nils.
- low-solvent coating - A coating which contains a sub-
stantially lower amount of VOC's than conventional organic
solvent borne coatings. Low solvent coatings usually fall
into the three major groups of higher solids, waterborne or
powder coatings.
-------
- line speed - The speed, or movement under normal oper-
ating conditions, of the target through the coating booth and
all associated subsequent operations.
- manual electrostatic spray- Manually applying coatings
using electrostatic spray application equipment.
- mil - A unit of length (thickness) equal to one thous-
andth of an inch.
- nozzle - The end of the coating applicator through
which the coating exits the applicator and which consists of
various configurations and diameter openings depending upon
the spray pattern desired, degree of atomization of the
coating particles and spray application method.
- paint/coating application pressure - The pressure
applied to the coatings to deliver the coatings to the
noz zle.
- purge or line purge - The coating material expelled
from the spray system when clearing it with a solvent or
other cleaning liquids to maintain operating conditions or
prior to using the same equipment for coating additional
objects with different color or composition coatings.
- relative humidity - The amount of water vapor in the air,
expressed as a percentage of the maximum amount that the air
can hold at a given temperature.
- surface area - The total area of the target intended
for coating.
- solvent borne coating - Coating which contains 95% or
more organic solvent in its volatile fraction. If water is
present, it is only present in quantities less than 5%.
- temperature - Temperature of the coating prior to
application.
- topcoat - The last coat applied in a coating system.
- TE - The ratio of the amount of coating solids deposited
onto the surface of the coated part to the total amount of
coating solids used.
- viscosity - A measure of a coating's resistance to flow.
- volatile fraction - that part of a coating which consists
of water and VOC.
-------
VOC - Any organic compound which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions- that is. any organic
compound other than those which the Administrator designates
as having negligible photochemical reactivity.
- VOC content - All volatile organic compounds contained
in a coating and expressed as Kilograms of VOC per liter of
coating solids or pounds of VOC per gallon of coating solids-
IV. Applicable Standard Methods
- ASTM D 1186-06.01 - Thickness of paints/related coatings,
dry film thickness of non-magnetic coatings applied to a
ferrous base.
- ASTM D 1200-06-01 - Standard test method for determining
the viscosity of paints and related coatings by the Ford
viscosity cup test.
- ASTM D 3794-06.01 - Standard test method for determining
the viscosity of coil coatings by the Zahn cup method test
- ASTM D 1475-60 - Standard test method for determining the
density of paint- varnish lacguer and related products.
- ASTM n 2369-81 - Standard test method for determining the
volatile content of coatings.
z>
- ASTM D 3792-79 - Standard test method for determining
the water content of water reducible paint by direct injection
into a gas chromatograph.
- ASTM 0 4017-81 Standard test method for determining
the water content in paints by the Karl Fischer titration
method.
- 40 C.F.R.. Part 60, Appendix A, Method 24 (revised July 1
1985) - To determine the weight of volatile matter, weight of
water, density, and weight of solids of surface coatings.
- 40 C.F.R.. Part 60- Appendix A, Method 2 (revised July 1.
1985) - To determine the velocity and volumetric flow rates.
- Volume of solids should be determined from coating for-
mulation data and diluent addition records, especially where
a chemical reaction may occur in the curing process. The
volume of solids may also be calculated from EPA Method 24
or related ASTM test method results if the density of the
VOC solvent (or solvent blend) is known or can be determined-
-------
V. Number of Coated Products to be Considered in the Test
A. One Product; Where only one item is coated on a
particular line the actual number of items tested shall be
as follows:
Production/Shift Items Tested
< 33 items 10 items or actual
number coated
33-100 items 30%
100-300 items 30 items
> 300 items in%
An exception may be made for the coating of large icems
such as heavy equipment or because of unique circumstances
where it can be demonstrated that the amount of items suggested
in the table is infeasible or that a reasonably accurate test
can be accomplished With ^ smaller sampling. When using the
weight method it may be reasonable to group a number of items
and weigh them as a group to determine an overall efficiency.
B. Variable Products; Items and groups of items selected
for testing should be representative of typical production
and exemplify the full range of shape, size and groups of
items typically coated. An equivalent number of tests, as
if it were for a single item, will be required for each item
or group of items selected for the TE test. Utilizing the
matrix in "A" above, at virtually no time should less than
ten (10) items be tested; however the number of different
items to be tested may be reduced if the source is willing to
accept results from coating a limited number of items which
are demonstrated to be difficult to coat as a result of their
shape and/or size. The source is responsible for describing
the various items coated and suggesting the items to be
tested. The regulatory agency shall make the final decision
as to which items are to be tested. It may also be possible
to group different items when using the weight method and
determine an overall TE.
VI. Number of Coatings Used in the Test
If numerous coatings are being used which vary signifi-
cantly (>10%) in solids content, water content, VOC content,
coating density or viscosity, or vary in type of coatr'^.y
-------
applied (e.g., metallic, lacquer, etc.) then several coatings
should be tested. Selection should be made based on the
list of characteristics stated here and the full range of
v..; iatility actually experienced on the job. Where the
coatings used do not vary significantly one typical coating
may be selected. It is the sources responsibility to consider
the various coatings used and suggest which ones should be
tested. The regulatory agency shall make the final decision
as to which coatings are to be tested.
VII. Number of Coating Lines to be Tested
If it can be demonstrated that multiple lines coat the
same items, have the same application equipment and operating
conditions and use the same coatings, only one line needs to
be tested. An individual test should be done on each line
that does not meet this criteria.
VIII. Size Considerations
Care should be taken to include in the test items which
represent the full range of item sizes coated at the plant.
It is preferable to include items near the extremes of the
size range and a typical sized item. Generally, larger
items tend to have higher TEs. In order to reduce cost and
minimize testing time, it is considered acceptable to
eliminate or minimize the testing of larger items. The
TE demonstrated on more typical and extremely small items
should produce conservative results which would be acceptable
to the regulatory agency.
IX. Shape Considerations
Generally, flat surfaces demonstrate higher and more
consistent TEs. Irregular shaped objects especially those
with crevices and internal corners (e.g., pails, interior
corners of metal cabinets) create special problems when
applying coatings, especially when electrostatic spray equip-
ment is used. As a result, film thickness may vary and TE
determinations based on film thickness measurements may be
subject to error if care is not taken. Care should also be
taken to select a range of item shapes typical of normal
plant production. Tests on irregular shaped objects tend to
-------
8
generate lower TE. A plan which minimizes or eliminates TE
testing of flat objects in favor or irregular shaped ones
would be considered conservative and acceptable. Such a
plan may be proposed to minimize cost or shorten testing
time
X. Establishing Operating Parameters
Tests should be conducted under normal operating/production
conditions. If conditions vary significantly from line to
line or among products, several test runs should be considered
which represent the full range of conditions. This requirement
may be relaxed if it can be demonstrated that the conditions
suggested in the test protocol will generate conservative
TE values. If possible, tests should be run during actual
periods of production, especially if applicators are manually
operated.
XI. Coating Characteristics
The following information should be supplied for all
coatings used•
A. Vendor, coating name, coating characteristics (e.g.,
metallic/non-metallic. color, acrylic/enamel, etc.) code or
other identification used at the plant.
B. Suppliers material safety data sheets.
C. Amount and type of diluent added per unit of coating
delivered.
D- The as applied analysis of the coating (see IV
Applicable Standard Methods).
Based on the variation in coatings used, the source should
suggest coatings for the test with a full range of characteristics
(also see VI, "Number of Coatings Used in the Test"). Several
coatings must be tested if there is a significant variance in
characteristics (>10%) such as solids, density, VOC content,
water content, and viscosity.
The test protocol should include provisions to take and
analyze coating samples at the beginning and at the
conclusion of the test.
-------
XII. Measurement of the Amount of Coatings Used
The protocol must provide for the actual measurement of
each coating used. This may be accomplished by usinq an
appropriate weiqht measurement device to weigh the coating
supply tank or an appropriate calibrated flow meter. The
volume or weiqht of coating used may be determined by either
method by directly reading the measurement device or by
multiplying or dividing the readings by the coating density,
as appropriate. The actual measurement device should be
determined based on source specific considerations and the
accuracy needed in the measurement device.
XIII.
If purge is not recycled or recovered, it must be included
with the amount of coatings applied. If the purge is recovered
or recycled , the test protocol should measure the raw solvent
usage on a weight or volume basis before and after testing
and it should be eliminated from consideration in calculating
the actual TE.
XIV- Test Conditions
Tests should be conducted under conditions typical
of actual production. Testing during normal production is
encouraged, especially for systems which include manual (as
opposed to automatic) application techniques. If testing
cannot be conducted during normal operating hours, considerable
care must be taken to simulate actual production conditions
during the test. Fully automatic systems tend to be more
amenable to testing during periods other than typical production
In these systei-is , application rate line speed- coating appli-
cation time and other production variables tend to be very
constant compared to manual systems.
XV. Apparatus
- spraying equipment - This system consists of paints/
coatings being sprayed, the associated hoses conveying
the paints/coatings to the spray guns and the applicators.
- weighing equipment - This consists of the equipment
necessary to weiqh the components being painted/coated, both
prior to painting and after painting to determine the weight
of the applied solids- Additionally, this includes the
-------
10
equipment necessary to weigh the coating supply vessel prior
to, during, and after all testing has been completed.
Select an appropriate weight measurement device capable
of detecting difference within +_ 0.05% between the weight of
the coating (estimated), plus substrate and the original
substrate weight.
- painting/coating thickness gauges - These gauges/instruments
shall be used to determine the thickness of the paint/coatings
on the coated object.
- flow meter - This meter shall measure the amount of paint/
coating material flowing through the flow meter to the nozzle of
the applicator. Ideally, this device should be obstructionless
and not be affected by paint chemistry, paint viscosity, paint
density, or paint temperature. It should be accurate to within
two percent. Although a higher degree of accuracy is
desireable, as a practical matter, flow meters with greater
accuracy than _+ 2% are not available as of this writing.
- line speed measurement device - This device should be able
to measure the speed of the target through the spray booth.
- viscosity measurement device - Standardized devices used to
measure the viscosity of the coatings.
- paint application gauges - Gauges capable of measuring
the amount of paint going to the applicator nozzle.
- air pressure gauges - Gauges capable of measuring the
air pressure delivered to the applicator nozzle.
- temperature sensors - These devices shall be capable of
measuring the temperature of the coating in the coating contain-
ers as the coating operation is being performed.
- humidity gauges - Standardized gauges capable of measuring
the humidity within the paint booth (e.g., sling hydrometer).
XVI. Establishing Baseline TE
Where a baseline TE has been established by EPA, that
value shall be used or the source may choose to use the 60%
default value where appropriate (see definition of baseline
TE). Otherwise, baseline TE shall be established by the
source as follows:
-------
11
A. Locate sources in the same industrial category (SIC)
coating similar objects. This may be done by reviewing
EPA's compliance data system (CDS) listings and SIC codes
with appropriate follow-up calls to EPA regional offices and
State agencies.
B. Contact State inspectors familiar with sources
identified to determine application equipment used during the
baseline period (see III.). At a minimum 10% of the sources
identified but not less than 10 or the actual number of
sources identified, which ever is less, must be evaluated.
C. Based on "A" & "B" above, establish baseline TE as
follows :
1. Where baseline equipment is currently in use at
the source in question, perform TE test by weight or volume
method as appropriate. Perform historical test to confirm
and support weight or volume test results. Baseline TE will
be the demonstrated TE unless historical data indicates a
significantly higher rate. In that case the historical
value will be used.
2. Where the baseline equipment had been but is no
longer used at the source in question, perform historical
test. The result will be the baseline TE.
3. Where baseline equipment had not been used at the
source in question, it was used but records are inadequate,
or a default value is inappropriate, the baseline TE shall
be the highest TE value reported by the manufacturer for
that type of application equipment, regardless of the character-
istics of the object being coated, or the values indicated in
the table below.
Alternate TEs
Application Method TE
air-atomized 0.40
airless spray 0.45
manual electrostatic spray 0.60
non-rotating automatic 0.85
electrostatic spray
rotating head electrostatic 0.90
spray (manual and automatic)
-------
12
dip coat 0.85
flow coat 0.85
electrodepositin 0.95
powder application 0.95
D. Where the baseline equipment is a mix of different
applicator types, the baseline TE shall be the sum of the
products of the fraction of each applicator type used, as
determined by the survey (if possible), times the TE value
from C-3 above. Otherwise, it shall be the arithmetic averge
of the TE value from C-3 above. If the source is using the
same mix of application equipment suggested by the survey
(regardless of the number or percentages of applicator types
indicated) the mix of actual applicator types used at the
source shall be considered baseline.
XVII. Procedures
A. Lab/Tin Foil Method
1. Applicability - To determine the TE of a difficult
to weigh body/target or where the overspray component has
to be eliminated by considering only those areas that should
be coated.
2. Special Considerations - This method is generally
performed in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Each
object (target) is closely wrapped in aluminum foil and
painted/coated. Because process variables may be held more
constant, the results would tend to indicate a higher TE
than if a TE test was conducted in an actual production
mode. All measurements taken and equipment used
shall be recorded.
3. Procedures
a. Bake a clean target to a constant weight,
using an approved calibrated weight device (e.g., electronic
load cell).
b. Weigh all the foil and tape to be used and
cover the body with the foil and tape where necessary. All
remaining tape and foil are weighed. The foil covered object
is then weighed.
-------
13
c. The paint/coating pressurized system,
including the tubing/hoses and applicator gun(s), are weighed.
The object/target is then coated, closely simulating normal
plant conditions, and baked, following normal plant baking
conditions. Allow the object/target to cool to ambient
conditions. The pressurized system, tubing and applicator
gun(s), including unused paint are then reweighed. The
weight of the paint used is determined by subtracting the
ending weight from the beginning weight. In lieu of the
weight measurements being taken, appropriate metering of the
amounts of coatings used is acceptable.
d. The painted foil covered object is reweighed.
The net increase in weight due to the coating solids deposited
onto both the intended areas and oversprayed areas is determined
by the difference in the weight of the foil covered target,
from the unpainted target.
e. The foil is then removed and film thickness
measurements are made at predetermined locations, to c'r'-.ain
an average film thickness that represents both the easily
reached and more difficult areas of the object.
f. All the painted foil and.tape is removed
from the object, collected and weighed. The body, with
painted foil and tape removed, is reweighed to determine the
weight of the dry paint solids caused by any overspray deposited
onto an object's surface not specified for coating.
g. The results of all these weighings enable
two independent material balances to be made to check the
validity of the gravimetric data. By identifying the weighed
conditions as ^ollows, the mass balances may be expressed
mathematically.
A = All available clean foil and tape;
B = Baked clean body;
C = Unpainted foil and tape covered body;
D = All unused clean foil and tape;
E = Painted foil and tape covered body, baked and
cooled;
F = Painted body (overspray), foil and tape removed;
and
G = All painted foil and tape
h. Balance all clean materials before spraying
A + B = C + D
i. Balance materials after spraying
E = F + G
-------
14
j. To calculate TE, each paint with characteristics
which vary by greater than ten percent (>10%) must be tested.
Volume fraction solids is determined using ASTM D2697-73.
The viscosities of each paint are measured using an approved
method. Using a standard gallon weight cup, paint densities
are determined using approved ASTM methods. The average
film thickness is determined using an approved ASTM method
and the total area coated must be measured. If the total
area coated cannot reasonably be determined, then the weight
method for determining TE should be used.
4. Data Analysis and Calculations Percent TE is
calculated by using one of the following formulas.
% TE (volume basis)-
[total area ] [Avg. film ] [ 1 ft.
[coated (ft2)][thickness (mils)
] [7.48 gal]
[ 12,000 mils] [
X[100]
[volume fraction solids] [gal. coating used]
% TE (weight basis)=
[Ibs. coating on target]
[gal. coating used] [coating density] [wt. fraction solids]
B. Historical Method
X [100]
1. Applicability - To make
where the source in question is using
equipment.
baseline TE
or has used
determinations
baseline
2. Special Consideration - Must have adequate records
and technical data to support any conclusion. Where equipment.
is still in use, a weight or volume test is also required.
3. Procedures
a. Records and characteristics of coatings and
diluents for the baseline year must be evaluated to determine
the actual amounts and types of coatings applied.
b. Records of production for the baseline year
must be evaluated to determine the actual production amounts
for each object coated and type of coating used.
c. Data indicating the amount of coating solids
applied (film thickness x surface area or weight) must be
available. Relevant information may be available through
product quality control testing records.
-------
15
d. Determine the approximate historical TE
(see Data Analysis and Calculations section below
e. Determine baseline application equipment
information: Manufacturer; type (electrostatic, air atomized,
etc.); normal operating conditions; and manufacturers suggested
TE range.
f. Perform an engineering analysis of the data
collected in items "a" through "e" above and calculate/estimate
the baseline TE. All calculations, rationale and assumptions
must be specified.
g. Compare the historical TE calculated in 'd1
above to the baseline estimate derived in 'f above.
h. The baseline TE shall be the higher of the
two TE's evaluated in "g1"above.
4. Data Analysis and Calculations
The historical TE = HTE
HTE = CA x NO (units must be consistent; either
TCU weight or volume is acceptable)
Where CA is the amount of coating solids per object; NO
is the number of objects coated in the baseline year; and
TCU is the total amount of coating solids used in the baseline
year.
C. Weight Method
1. Applicability - Determine TE of application
equipment in use regardless of the characteristics of the
item coated.
2. Special Considerations - Valid for most coating
operations and especially useful for small and/or odd shaped
objects. It may allow for the weighing of groups of objects.
Where only part of an object is to be coated, this method
may give high TE results by including overspray on areas not
intended to be coated. If the potential error is 2% or
greater as a result of overspray, either the tin foil method
or volume method should be used.
-------
16
3. Procedures
a. Establish Precoating Weight of Object(s) to
be Coated;
(1) Objects(s) to be coated should be clean
and free from all foreign matter.
(2) Select an appropriate weight measurement
device capable of detecting difference within _+ 0.05% between
the weight of the coating (estimated) plus substrate and the
original substrate weight.
(3) "Zero" weight measurement device before
each weighing.
(4) Identify or tag objects to be coated and
record identification reference.
(5) Weigh each item to be coated twice and
record each measurement. If the difference between measurements
exceeds 0.10% of the estimated weight of the coating to be
applied, the object should be reweighed. If the third measure-
ment does not agree with one of the previous measurements,
check measurement device and procedures, take corrective
action as necessary and repeat the entire procedure.
(6) At least two observers must read and
agree on each weight measurement.
(7) Weight measurements should not be taken
until all movement (swaying, rocking, etc.) has ceased and
the measurement device and the object are at complete rest.
Where practicable, the weight measurement should take place
at a location free from vibration, air currents or other
conditions which may affect an accurate measurement.
(8) As a confidence check (optional), place
the object to be coated on the measurement device, weigh the
object and record the reading. Add a known weight to the
object (approximately = 10% of the weight increase anticipated
from the coating). If the difference is within +_ 1.0% of the
known weight, confidence in the accuracy of the measurement
is high.
-------
17
b. Determining the Amount of Coating Used:
(1) The coating supply volume must be metered
or weighed to determine the amount of coating being used per
object (or group of objects) actually coated. Weighing
procedures should be the same as that indicated in "a" above
for the object being coated.
(2) The coatings in the supply vessel should
be mixed or agitated to ensure that no settlement within the
vessel occurs which may tend to affect the ultimate TE calculated.
(3) Establish initial amount of coating
available by weighing or establishing initial volume reading
of the meter and record
(4) Coat object(s) -
(5) Reweigh paint supply or read paint supply
volume meter and record
(6) If purging is used to clear lines in
between coating color changes or to prevent line clogging.
then additional measurements may be reguired. If plant
practice is to recycle or otherwise reclaim the purge stream,
then its volume should not be included as part of the TE
calculation. However if the purge stream is not recycled
or reclaimed, then the guantity of coating lost during the
purge should be included in the TE calculations.
c. Post Coating Weighing
(1) Allow coated objects to fully dry (and
cure if appropriate) and return to ambient conditions, especially
temperature (Note- If the object being coated has hollow areas.
crevices or similar areas where air pockets may occur, warm
air resulting from drying ovens may create a buoyant effect
which will give a low erroneous weight reading). Drying
and/or curing should be accomplished in a manner typical of
normal production conditions
(2) Weigh and record measurements as in-
dicated in "a" above.
-------
18
d. Coating Samples; Coating samples should be
taken at the beginning and the end of each test period.
Coating samples must be analyzed on a weight -and/or volume
basis for total volatiles, water, VOC solids, coating density
and viscosity in accordance with the test methods specified
in Section IV, Applicable Standard Methods. Manufacturer's
formulation information should be noted but not relied on
since this information is an average and may vary between
batches of coating.
e. Other Measurements; The following parameters
must also be measured and/or recorded in the spray booth or
area in which the coating is being applied:
(1) Air circulation rate through the paint
booth.
(2) Speed of targets through paint booth and
actual amount of time the target spends in the booth.
(3) Type of spray application eguipment and
method of painting (e.g., manual air-atomized, robotic electro-
static, etc.).
(4) Voltage applied to the electrostatic
application eguipment.
(5) Orifice size and configuration of nozzle
on application eguipment.
(6) Coating application pressure and atomizin
air pressure.
(7) Paint viscosity and temperature.
(8) Paint booth humidity.
4. Data Analysis and Calculations
a. The weights used to calculate the TE shall be I
the average of the two readings taken (or the two consistent |
readings if three (3) measurements are made).
b. Determine and record the density of each coating
used during the test. This shall be determined by testing in '
accordance with ASTM method D 1475-60.
-------
19
c. Determine and record the weight fraction of
the solids content of the coating by testing in accordance
with Section IV, Applicable Standard Methods.
d. Determine and record the weight of the coating
used during the test.
e. Calculating % TE.
(1) The weight of coating solids applied = CA
CA = OF - 01
Where OF is the average final weight of the object(s)
and 01"is the average initial weight of the object(s).
(2) The weight of coatings solids used = CU
- if the supply is weighed
CU = (CI - CF) S
Where CF is average final weight of the coating container
after the product run, CI is the average initial weight
of the coating container before the product run and S is the
weight fraction of solids in the coating.
- if the coating supplied is metered.
CU = (MF - Mx) DCS
Where Mp is the final meter reading, Mj is the initial
meter reading, and Dc is the density of the coating and S is
the weight fraction of solids in the coating.
(3). Transfer Efficiency = % TE
(x)
% TE = CA (y)
CU
Where x is the toal number of objects coated and y is
the total number of objects weighed.
-------
20
(4) Where several different coatings are
being tested the overall TE = OTEC
n
OTEC =
i = 1
Where % TE^ is the % TE for each coating tested and U^
is the use factor where:
ui = AUi
AUT
Where AU^ is the actual amount of a particular coating used
irt the previous 2 year period and AUT is the actual amount
of all tested coatings used in the same 2 year period.
(5) Where several different type objects are
coated on the same line the overall TE = OTEO
n
Z
i = 1
Where % TO^ is the % TE for each object tested and
the use factor where
is
AOT
Where AO^ is the actual amount of the particular object
coated in the previous 2 year period and AOT is the actual
amount of all tested objects coated in the same 2 year period.
D. Volume Method
1. Applicability - To determine the TE of application
equipment in use provided that film thickness and surface
area can be accurately determined.
2. Special Considerations - Not applicable for odd
shaped or small objects where multiple accurate film thickness
measurements are infeasible or doubtful. The results obtained
using this method, versus the weight method, may tend to
indicate lower TEs with identical coatings and application
equipment. This occurs primarily because the volume method
includes only those areas intended for coating whereas the
weight method includes not only areas intended for coating,
but also those that had been coated by any overspray.
-------
21
3. Procedures
a. Determine and record the total surface area
of the areas intended to be coated. Take at least 2 film
thickness measurements per object for small objects and one
per square foot of furface area for larger objects. These
measurements shall be as representative as possible of areas.
that may be expected to have varying film thickness. A
sketch with designated points for measurement is suggested
where a large number of measurements is required.
(1) If some areas of targets to be coated
are or may reasonably be expected to have film thicknesses
which may vary by more than 25%, then th ircas to be coated
should be sketched out on a diagram. The sketch should be
divided into a matrix with film thickness measurements taken
at all points, indicated on the diagram, that may be expected
to vary.
(2) Where coatings of significantly different
characteristics or compositions (>10%) are used then film
thickness measurements should be taken on several coatings,
see Section VI, Number of Coatings Used in the Test.
(3) Film thickness measurements shall be
taken before coating, if the areas are primed, and after
each subsequent coating. These measurements shall be taken
at all points consistent with the pattern (locations) and
marked on the diagram discussed in (1) above.
(4) The average film thickness is multiplied
by the surface area of each target intended to be coated.
b. Determine Paint Flow Measurement or Usage
(1) The volume of paint used can be determined
either directly by using a flow meter or indirectly by
calculation. The indirect method requires that the coating
be weighed in a container, that the container weight be
subtracted, and that the volume be determined by dividing by
the coating density.
-------
22
(2) The coatings in the container should be
mixed or agitated to ensure that no settlement within the
container occurs which would tend to affect the ultimate TE
calculated.
(3) Establish initial amount of coating
available by weighing or establishing initial volume reading
of the flow meter and record.
(4) Coat object(s).
(5) Reweigh paint supply or read paint supply
volume meter and record.
(6) If purging is used to clear lines in
between coating color changes or to prevent line clogging,
then additional measurements may be required. If plant
practice is to recycle or otherwise reclaim the purge stream,
then its volume should not be included as part of the TE
calculation. However, if the purge stream is not recycled
or reclaimed, then the quantity of coating lost during the
purge should be included in the TE calculations.
c. Analysis of Coatings
Coating samples should be taken at the beginning and
conclusion of each test. Coating samples must be analyzed
for weight of total volatiles, water and solids, and coating
density and viscosity in accordance with the test methods
specified in Section IV, Applicable Standard Methods. Except
for volume of coating solids, manufacturer's formulation
information should be noted but not relied on since this
information is an average and may vary between batches of
coatings. The volume of coating solids must be determined
from formulation and dilution data.
d. Additional Information to be Documented During
the Test
(1) Air circulation rate through the paint
booth.
(2) Speed of targets through paint booth and
actual amount of time target spends in the booth.
-------
23
(3) Type of spray application equipment and
method of painting (e.g. manual air-atomized, robotic electro-
static . etc .) .
(4) Voltage applied to electrostatic application
equipment.
(5) Orifice size and contiquration of nozzle on
application equipment.
(6) Coating application pressure and atomizing
air pressure
(7) Paint viscosity and temperature.
(8) Paint booth humidity
4. Data Analysis and Calculations
a. Calculate and record the average film thickness,
in mils (0.001 inches), by totaling each measurement taken
from each target at pre-determined points and average the
film thickness readings.
b- Determine and record the density of each coating
used during the test. This shall be determined by testing
in accordance with ASTM method D 1475-60.
c. Determine and record the volume fraction of the
solids content of the coating from manufacture formulation
data and records of diluent addition.
d- Determine and record the volume of the coating
used during the test
e. Calculating % TE
A = paint usage in gallons
B = average film thickness in inches ( 1 mil = 0-001 inch)
C = volume fraction of solids in coating
D = surface area in square feet
E = 7.48 gallons/ft3
1 ft.
% TE = E x B x D x 12 in. x 100%
A x C
-------
24
XVIII. Changes in Method of Operation, Equipment/Process
Modifications and other Changes
Changes in operation, equipment/process modifications or
other changes may significantly change TE. Unless it can be
clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the regulatory
agency that any changes and/or modifications will not reduce
TE, changes and modifications which effect TE will require
retesting within 180 days of the change or modification.
Changes which are claimed to have improved TE must be
demonstrated through an acceptable test procedure before
additional credit can be given.
XIX. Retesting shall be required if;
A. There is a significant change in operating conditions;
B. There is a significant change in the characteristics of
the coatings being used;
C. The coating process or applicators are changed or
modified and it cannot be demonstrated to the regulatory
agency's satisfaction that TE has been maintained or improved;
D. A substantially different product which is not within
the range of products coated in the orginal test is coated at
the source; and
E. Whenever the regulatory agency concludes that records
maintained by the source indicate a significant reduction in
TE (significant means greater than a 5% change in any oper-
ating condition or parameter.)
XX. Recordkeeping;
Data recording forms for parameters checked during the
test should be prepared and thoroughly completed in ink during
the test. Original forms must be maintained along with any
notes describing actual conditions or observations made during
the test. Parameters which are indicative of actual production
conditions which may affect TE should be recorded, (e.g.,
voltage, line speed, atomization air pressure). The actual
equipment in use (e.g. type, model, and locations of appli-
cators) should also be documented.
The facility should also plan on maintaining records of
operating parameters, equipment usage, production and coating
usage and characteristics on a regular basis to assure that
operating conditions observed during the test continue to be
met.
-------
25
XXI. References
- Glossary for Air Pollution Control of Industrial Coating
Operations (Second Edition) EPA-450/3-83-013R.
- Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60 (Revised
as of July 1, 1985) .
- Baseline TE of Waterborne Enamel Topcoat (General
Motors - October 1, 1979).
- What Every Spray Painter Should Know About TE
by Dale Hemming, March 1985 issue of Product Finishing.
EPA 600/2-85-107,* TE of Improperly Maintained or
Operated Spray Painting Equipment Sensitivity Study.
Prepared for OAQPS by Air and Energy Engineering Research
9/85.
EPA 450/3-79-030b, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations. NSPS, Prepared Air OAQPS
EPA 450/3 80-007a, Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
NSPS. Prepared for OAQPS 9/80.
EPA Memorandum, April 11, 1986: From Gerald Eraison,
Director OAQPS response to five VOC Issues raised by the
Regional Offices and Department of Justice. Pages 12 - 15
and attachments 1-6.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
^ Regional Counsel Opinion
^
BACKGROUND
The Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Implement the federal
Clean Air Act contains provisions governing surface coating processes for
sources with the potential to emit at least 500 pounds per day or 50 tons per
year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These provisions are in Section
129.52 of Title 25'of the Pennsylvania Code. Section 129.51 of the Code provides
that "Techniques other than those specified in SS 129.52-129.70 ... may be
used to comply with the requirements of these sections if the Department has
approved such alternate techniques after finding that they are equivalent to or
better than those specified in these sections in terms of the control of volatile
organic compounds."
In connection with its implementation and enforcement of these provisions,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested that the Regional Counsel, EPA
Region III, answer legal questions regarding the effect of certain of
Pennsylvania's equivalency approvals under the federal Clean Air Act and
regarding the legal requirements for a federally approvable "generic" equivalency
provision.
FACTS
Hack Trucks, Inc., operates two surface coating facilities in Pennsylvania,
both of which are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 129.52 of
Title 25 Tjf the Pennsylvania Code. Mack has requested that the State
ailoH it to use control techniques other than those specified in f 129.52 so
that it may meet emission limitations different from the emission 1 in itations
specified in that section. The alternative techniques involve application
equipment which Improves the transfer efficiency, thereby reducing the amount
of paint (and associated VOCs) which is applied for each surface coating operation.
Based on Mack's request and information supplied, the State has determined
that Mack's alternative application equipment is equivalent to or better than
the control techniques specified in S 129.52 in terms of VOC control*
The State has issued temporary operating permits for both facilities which
establish operating conditions, including a range of transfer efficiency rates
for certain sources within each plant. No SIP revision embodying the Mack
Truck equivalency determination has been submitted to EPA for approval.
-------
-2-
QUESTION II
la the absence of an EPA-approved case-by-case SIP revision, does the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's determination of equivalency and approval of
alternative techniques for VOC control at Mack Truck's surface coating facilities
render those techniques federally enforceable under the Clean Air Act, thereby
relieving Mack Truck of the obligation to comply tilth the emission limitations
specified in Section 129.52 of Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code for federal
Clean Air Act purposes?
•*
ANSWER
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's approval of the alternative techniques
that Mack Truck.applied to use under the "equivalency" provision contained in
Section 129.51 of Title 25 of the Pa. Code does not, in itself, substitute
such techniques for the preexisting emissions limit as the federally enforceable
Clean Air Act requirement. Even assuming for the purposes of this discussion
that EPA approved in advance some types of equivalency determinations under
that provision and that the provision is therefore "generic" for some purposes,
such advance approval would not extend to transfer efficiency-baaed
equivalency determinations like those made by Pennsylvania for the Mack Truck
operations. Such findings require the exercise of significant discretionary
judgment and therefore do not meet the criteria for advance approval under a
generic mechanism for modification of otherwise applicable SIP requirements.
Therefore, in order for the high transfer efficiency processes at the Mack
facilities to constitute an acceptable means for complying with the
Pennsylvania SIP and, therefore, with the Clean Air Act, those processes must
be made a requirement of the SIP through a case-by-case SIP revision process,
including federal rulemaking. Absent such a SIP revision, Mack Truck's
facilities remain subject to the VOC control requirements of S 129.52.
DISCUSSION 9
Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act provides, with certain exceptions not
relevant here, that "[except for] a plan revision under subsection (a)(3) of
this section, no order, suspension, plan revision, or other action modifying
any requirement of an applicable implementation plan may be taken with respect
to any stationary source by the State or by the Administrator." Plan revisions
under Section 110(a)(3) can be approved by EPA only if the procedural (notice
and public hearings) and substantive requirements of Section 110(a)(2) are met,
including EPA*s determination that the SIP contains those measures necessary to
assure attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards
within certain time frames.
EPA has^traditionally interpreted these provisions as mandating a sequential
two-step SIP"revision process, i.e., first the State adopts a revision and
then EPA gives it effect as a SIP revision by approving it. For example,
in its 1979 "bubble" policy, EPA stated: ;
Some commentera suggested that EPA would not need to use a case-by-
case SIP revision for alternative approaches If the state incorporated
a general regulation for alternative control strategies in its
SIP that EPA has approved. Instead, EPA should depend on spot audits
-------
-3-
to determine if the state is faithfully adhering to the requirements
of the general SIP revision.
In response, the Agency believes that case-by-case SIP revisions are
necessary for an alternative approach to be legally enforceable. The
j Clean Air Act requires EPA to review and process all SIP revisions,
% and this cannot be eliminated or delegated. Additionally, a spot
? audit would not be a practical means of oversight, since any errors
^ it would turn up are not easily reversible.
44 Fed. Reg. 71786 (December 11, 1979).
EPA apparently intended this sequential process for "alternative
control plans" like shifts in transfer efficiency when it stated in the
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) for surface coating of miscellaneous
metal parts:
No alternative control plan is effective until it is submitted to and
approved by the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency as a revision of the State Implementation Plan
pursuant to Section 110(a)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act.
Guidance to State and Local Agencies in Preparing Regulations to Control Volatile
Organic Compounds from Ten Stationary Source Categories, September, 1979, at 41. V
EPA has recognized, however, that, under certain circumstances, Sections
110(i) and 110(a)(3) permit EPA to reverse the sequence in the process by
approving into the SIP both a mechanism for the future adoption of source-specific
emission limitations and, in advance of that later adoption, the limitations
themselves. Because of the advance approval of limits adopted under these
"generic" mechanisms, the State may establish or revise federally enforceable
limitations without having to submit each such revision to EPA for new
approval. The description of this type of SIP revision was set forth in the
rulemaking for the New Jersey "generic bubble", 45 Fed. Reg. 77459 (November
24, 1930) **/ and amplified in a 1982 interim Emissions Trading Policy Statement,
*/ The "questions and answers" discussion following this section of the
~~ guidance document specifically discussed higher coating transfer
efficiency as one type of "alternative control plan".
**/ Compare 44 Fed. Reg. 71780, 71782 (December 11, 1979).
-------
-4-
under which a number of additional state bubble rules have been explicitly
approved as having generic effect. 47 Fed. Reg. 15076 (April 7, 1982). ***/
In EPA notices discussing approval of SIP provisions that allow a
State to impose alternative emission limits without receiving subsequent
EPA approval, EPA explained that such provisions are approvable only if they
provide "mechanical procedures" and do not permit "choices by the State that
are not similarly circumscribed and mechanical in operation." E.g., 45 Fed.
Reg. 77459, 77461 (November 24, 1980). Put another way, "replicabillty" In
State decisionmaking under the provision means "a high liklihood that two
decision-makers applying the rule to given circumstances would reach the
same conclusion." Reg. 15076, 15084 (April 7, 1982). This replicabillty
requirement is necessary for EPA to have reasonable assurance that
alternative approaches approved under the rule will protect or achieve SIP
values at least as well as the original requirements.
EPA approved Section 129.52 of Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code without
stating whether or not it was approving the provision as a generic rule. Hence,
there is no evidence that EPA intended to approve the provision as generic.
There have been similar circumstances in a number of states where EPA has
approved such "equivalency" provisions while remaining completely silent,
before and at the time of approval, as to its intent regarding the generic
status of these provisions. EPA is now examining whether some of those
provisions, when applied to certain specific types of equivalency determinations,
may meet the replicability requirement. In any event, It is clear that
EPA would generically approve a rule to operate only for categories of
determinations that do not involve the exercise of significant non-replicable
judgment by the State. In this case, the transfer efficiency evaluation
required for the Mack Truck facilities involved complex determinations
for which the rule itself did not prescribe procedures and requirements in
any detail. The rule left the State a significant range of procedures and
***/ EPA expressly approved Section 129.53 of Title 25 of the Pennsylvania
Code, (as distinct from the provision at issue here, Section 129.52)
as a "generic bubble" provision. That rule provides that, upon certain
described showings by a source, the State may approve, in an applicable
operating permit, specified alternative emissions limitations for the VOC
facility. The criteria under which this generic provision was adopted were
identified in the EPA rulemaklng notices proposing and finally approving
that provision. EPA's notices expressly stated that the provision permits
implementation by the State without the necessity for EPA approval of specific
alternative emissions standards. 47 Fed. Reg. 23186 (May 26, 1982) and 48
Fed. Reg. 2319 (January 19, 1983). ,.:: ---,•;,-...-.' : ;
••«*-.-
-------
-5-
choices in making those determinations.****/ Thus, EPA could not have intended
to authorize the State to incorporate the arrangement requested by Mack
Truck into the SIP without subsequent EPA approval*
vl^1
QUESTION *2
t.
In circumstances where case-by-case SIP revisions are currently required,
how may Pennsylvania revise its SIP so that equivalency determinations and
approvals can become automatically federally enforceable, without a requirement
for case-by-case SIP revisions?
ANSWER
EPA would approve an equivalency provision generically if the provision
specifies an essentially mechanical process which the State must follow in
making its equivalency determination. Thus, EPA would approve such a provision
generically as it applies to transfer efficiency determinations like the one
Mack Truck requested, if the provision itself laid out a detailed process
that would constrain the State to produce equivalency findings in a replicable
manner. If transfer efficiency evaluations inherently involve determinations
so complex that they are difficult to specify, quantify and replicate, such
equivalency determinations may be difficult to define in a manner which is
sufficiently circumscribed for approval as a generic SIP revision. EPA
therefore recommends that if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wishes to
pursue such a generic approach to equivalency determinations of the type
presented by this case, it work closely with the Region in an effort to
develop a proposed SIP provision that contains replicable, mutually acceptable
procedures.
Date ' Bruce H. Diamond
Regional Counsel
Region III
U.S. Environs
-------
Appendix 3.0
Generic VOC Program Issues
-------
MAT20O5
OF'k:
AIR ASU RA
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Results of May 3 VOC Meeting
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Gerald A. Eraison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
This memorandum summarizes the results of the May 3 VOC
meeting held in Durham. Staff from CPDDf ESED, SSCD, and
OECM's AED were represented. The purpose of the meeting was
to discuss the VOC issues summarized in my April 5 memorandum
to you and get agreement on those needing Headquarters guid-
ance.
y
I am pleased to report that the meeting was very
productive. The group managed to discuss every issue.
As a result of this intensive effortf nineteen issues (repre-
sents a combination of some) were decided as needing immediate
Headquarters guidance. Three others have had guidance recent-
ly issued and seven were dismissed as not needing guidance.
The lead office on the nineteen issues was somewhat
evenly divided among the four Headquarters offices. Attached
is a list of the nineteen issues and the lead office. It was
agreed that draft respones reflecting OAQPS's and AED's input
would be produced by June 14. The next step would be to get
Regional comment via the VOC Compliance Workgroup. If neces-
sary, this Workgroup would convene to discuss some or all of
the drafts.
-------
-2-
As before, I again ask for your support and that of the
other Division Directors in timely preparation of responses.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss the
results of this meeting or the process outlined.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Jack Farmer, ESED
Mike Alushin, AED
Attachments
-------
Attachment
VOC Issues to be Addressed
Need clarification on the policy implications of the
November 20, 1980 can coating memorandum. Included in
this response will be the following issues:
0 cross - line averaging
0 24-hour averaging
0 applicability to other CTG categories
0 need for SIP revisions
0 hybrid compliance approaches (e.g. use of a
combination of LST and add-on controls)
Lead Office: CPDD (Coordinate with SSCD, ESED, OECM-AED).
What is the Agency's enforcement response for sources
subject to pending bubbles, specifically for bubbles in
areas lacking an approved attainment demonstration?
Lead Office: SSCD
Need guidance on recordkeeping requirements. Specifically:
0 Is it feasible to request daily recordkeeping?
0 Should SIPs which do not require recordkeeping be
declared deficient?
0 What type of recordkeeping should be required?
0 How can or should recordkeeping be verified when
EPA cannot independently determine compliance?
0 How are VOC emissions to be calculated over a chosen
averaging time when a company is not required to,
and does not, maintain records directly pertinent
to that unit of time.
Lead Office: SSCD (CPDD to take lead on second bullet via
the Ozone Initiatives; OECM-AED to take
lead on last bullet.)
-------
-2-
4. What is the effect of EPA approval of SIP procedures for
State and/or local agency issuance of time extensions or
internal off-sets (bubbles)? Do individual State actions
under these procedures have to be approved by EPA as SIP
revisions before they become effective under the CAA?
Lead Office: OECM-AED (Coordinate with OGC)
5. How can EPA include a bubble in the context of consent
decrees?
Lead Office: AED
6. Schedules for LST or installation of add-on controls:
0 How do we determine the amount of time to give to
individual sources-especially beyond 1985?
0 At what point in an LST schedule do we require the
company to install add-on controls?
0 How to establish a back-up schedule for installation
of add-on controls where the present reduction in
the SIP is less for add-on than for LST (example,
flexographic printers where SIP requires 60% control
efficiency for add-on's and 75% reduction for LST).
0 Balance between expeditiousness of installing add-
on's and economic savings realized from LST.
0 What type of assurances are required from sources
before granting LST extensions?
0 Should the extension be based on attainment status
of area?
Lead Office: SSCD
7. At the present time all Class Al and A2 VOC sources in
the New York City (NYC) Metropolitan AQCR have been
identified and verified, and those which are out of
compliance have been placed on the SVIO list. Region II
would like to have all Class B VOC sources which have an
ERP >50 TPY, and are out of compliance, placed on the
SVIO list. By doing this the Region would be able to
more accurately reflect its continuing enforcement effort
in the NYC Metropolitan area, currently non-attainment
for VOCs.
-------
-3-
Lead Office: SSCD
8. It has become apparent that EPA is taking a tougher
enforcement stance on the round II CTG's than was
evident in round I. Notice of this change came through the
a-igust 17, 1984 Lillquist letter which was an attachment
to the October 2, 1984 memorandum on coordinating key
issues in VOC cases from Micheal Alusin, Associate Enforce-
ment Counsel. Although Region III generally supports
this change in policy, we are extremely concerned about
the method and timing of disseminating this policy.
This tougher stance on compliance represents a significant
shift in policy. The novel distribution approach of
attaching it to a memorandum which appears to have been
intended for limited distribution leaves much to be
desired. States have been negotiating schedules over the
past year which reflect EPA's more laissez-faire enforce-
ment posture taken on the round I CTG's. This change in
policy is coming to them (and us) about one year late.
As a result, it will disrupt the processing of orders and
SIP's negotiated by States under our previous enforcement
posture and strain EPA/State relations.
Region III suggests that Headquarters reassess its method
of policy distribution. If EPA is to ensure the time-
liness and appropriateness of State enforcement activities,
we must inform the States of the rules of the game in a
timely and appropriate manner.
Lead Office: SSCD
9. Need guidance on RACT determinations for CTG categories.
Specifically:
0 What criteria should be used to determine economic
feasibility for non-CTG sources? For CTG sources
where recommended RACT is technically infeasible?
0 Have any criteria, procedures, or policy been
established for making applicability determinations?
In particular, have any non-applicability determin-
ations been made for the miscellaneous metal parts
and products CTG?
0 What type of economic analysis should be performed
by the company and EPA to determine feasibility of
installation of controls.
Lead Office: CPDD (coordinate with SASD)
-------
-4-
10. Establish the Agency's solids-applied requirement for
determining equivalency in a definitive manner, as through
publication of a Federal Register notice which clarifies
the matter once and for all.
Lead Office: CPDD (Suggestion made that ths issue be
addressed in the Ozone Initiative).
11. How can we tolerate NSPS limits that are less stringent
than RACT limits for VOC sources, especially for sources
that are not currently eligible for bubbles because thay
are located in ozone non-attainment areas without approved
plans?
Lead Office: ESED
12. Should total quantities of VOC be regulated as opposed to
regulating the VOC content of individual coatings?
Lead Office: CPDD
13. What baseline year should be used for determining VOC
percent emission reductions as per State SIP regulations?
Lead Office: CPDD
14. Are there any site specific RACT limits being set?
T.pad Office: CPDD
15. Is an exemption for use of incinerators in non-ozone
season appropriate? How can we justify suing sources for
failure to utilize controls during non-ozone season in
SIPs where there is no exemption?
Lead Office: OECM-AED
16. Need to resolve inconsistencies regarding transfer
efficiency (TE). Specifically:
0 What baseline should be used (CTG, source's existing
level on August 7, 1977, other)?
0 Should the source get full credit about this level?
0 How is credit to be calculated?
0 Should such equivalence be done as an alternate
RACT determination?
-------
-5-
0 What is our policy concerning crediting of technology
resultant VOC emission reductions?
0 Should Regions be allowed to determine credits
without relying on Headquarters determinations?
Lead Office: ESED (OECM-AED will provide input on SIP
revision language).
17. Need to have a reference method for determining capture
efficiency of control devices installed by VOC emitting
sources. This method should be formally established and
should be feasible for routine inspections, not just full
blown enforcement tests.
Lead Office: ESED
18. Where incineration is only used sporadically when hi-
solvent coatings are used, what type of compliance
monitoring is required? Is efficiency of the incinerator
impacted by sporadic use?
Lead Office: ESED
19. What are the appropriate test methods for assessing VOC
compliance? Where are the gaps, if any, between the need
in various contexts for measuring VOC compliance and
actual State SIP test methods or EPA promulgated test
methods?
Lead Office: ESED
-------
Issues Already Addressed
Need Headquarters to open direct discussions with DOD to
ultimately have them require the use of complying coating
technology for all DOD contracts. This approach would be
better than the piecemeal attempts to get every contrac-
tor to expedite compliance with VOC regulations.
Guidance issued by SSCD on April 24, 1985.
What are appropriate civil penalties for sources that
have missed their final compliance date and are proceed-
ing with LST? Missed their final compliance date and
proceeding with installation of add-on controls? Follow-
ing can coater's policy?
Guidance issued by OECM on September 12, 1984. VOC civil
penalties are discussed in Appendix IV.
Establish an effective mechanism for resolving VOC issues
and questions. Utilize fully the resources for the VOC
workgroup, the RACT clearinghouse newsletter and involve
all appropriate Agency groups in the resolution: SSCD,
CPDD, ESED, OECM, etc.
The VOC Compliance Workgroup which is composed of Regional
and Headquarters staff is established for the purposes of
addressing VOC compliance and enforcement concerns that
are confronting the Regions and States. The VOC RACT
Clearinghouse Newsletter is a forum for exchanging technir
cal information on VOC controls. It invites information
on EPA activities and determinations directly affecting
State and local agency efforts in VOC control. The
Cleaninghouse also invites articles from industry on
successess they are experiencing, expecially in low-
solvent coatings. Hopefully, this workgroup is the
"effective mechanism" desired. If not, suggestions for
improvement are welcome.
-------
VOC Issues Where Guidance Is Unnecessary
1. Currently there are perhaps 5,000 retail gasoline stations
in the NYC Metropolitan area which need to be inspected
for compliance with Stage I and II vapor recovery regula-
tory requirements. As Region II understands the situa-
tion, those sources are presently regulated by the Office
of Mobile Source Enforcement (OMSE). OMSE had been con-
tracted with respect to possible funding of contractor
inspections of these sources, or at least a substantial
porition of them.
Region II has been told that the Regions' Air Branch
handles this funding, yet our Air Branch personnel have
no knowledge of this. Region II is therefore requesting
that these sources be placed under the jurisdiction of
SSCD as stationary sources, or that funding from QMS be
made available for contractor inspections. As an alterna-
tive, we would receptive to another funding arrangement
Headquarters might be able to suggest.
2. Region IX's oversight function, particularly for small
sources, depends on the success of local District inspec-
tors. We need a strategy for ensuring that inspectors
receive adequate training in VOC source categories and to
verify the quality of their inspections.
3. ORC is tending toward skipping the Federally issued DCO
step and going for straight referrals to DOJ - yet all
six Region IX DOJ referrals made this year are still
pending. As deadlines draw closer, this will become a
bottleneck.
4. Is the Agency contemplating any changes in CTG's?
5. Should agency continue to encourage use of non-
photochemically reactive but toxic or carcinogenic
solvents?
6. Is method 25 reliable?
7. Need for national clearinghouse on:
0 Availability of reformulated coatings.
0 Installation of add-on controls-location of sources,
type of controls and control efficiency.
-------
-2-
0 Expert witnesses to testify as to reformulations, add-
on controls and control efficiency.
0 Viability of CTG's.
0 Bibliography of all Federal Register policy notices on
VOC sources.
-------
Issues That Were Combined With The Nineteen
1. How can EPA permit hybrid compliance approaches where the
SIPs do not allow for alternative compliance programs?
What type of reduction should be required from a hybrid
program, especially where a SIP has different control
efficiencies for LST and incineration?
Where SIPs are silent as to compliance methodology, should
they be interpreted to require compliance on an instantaneous
basis?
Combined with Issue t 1
2. Region IX needs a small source (Class B) identification
and compliance strategy - national input and consistency
would be helpful.
Combined with Issue I 7
3. With 24-hour averaging it is virtually impossible for
Region IX or District inspectors to independently verify
compliance via the inspection process.
Combined with Issue # 3
4. What is a bubble? What is a generic bubble?
Combined with Issue # 4
5. What type of economic analysis should be performed by the
company and EPA to determine feasibilty of installation of
controls?
Combined yith Issue # 9
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Insight into Lack of Progress in Attaining the Ambient Air
Quality Standard forgone
> T
FROM: James C. Berry, _
Chemical Applications Settion, CPB (MD-13)
TO: Susan Wyatt, Chief
Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-13)
Based on results of an informal poll of at least 200 - and perhaps as many
as 250 - people, the number of surface-coating plants complying with State
regulations is remarkably (unbelievably) low. Only eight people, who may have
represented as few as two plants, indicated that they knew the State and
Federal regulations that applied to their plant and were in compliance.
Furthermore, no one presently out of compliance indicated they would be in
compliance by the end of 1985.
Details
As you know, I chaired a session on Governmental regulations that affect
the coatings industry in Chicago on April 17th, at the second annual
"Paint-Con"(ference). Other speakers were Dr. John Skinner, Director, Office
of Solid Waste, EPA; Ernst Hall, Chief, Metals Industry Branch, Industrial
Technology Division, EPA; and Gary Anderson, Industrial Hygienist, Chicago
Regional Office of OSHA. A copy of the.program is attached.
My talk centered around compliance, and essentially paraphrased a two-hour
discussion with John Calcagni held earlier this month. I began by repeating my
appreciation and admiration for the efforts of the research chemists In the
paint industry for developing the many low-solvent coatings that are now
available. This was essentially the same comment that I made at the Haterborne
and High-Solids Symposium in February which was quoted In the editorial of the
February 25th edition of American Paint and Coatings Journal.
My new question to the audience at this meeting was, "Are*they"selling any
of these new products, or more pointedly, are ycm buying them?" I quoted
statistics published by Industrial Finishing Magazine as a result of two ballots
published in their magazine. Results of the first, reported in April, 1984,
indicated that 65 percent of the respondents had changed paints to a low-sol vent
variety in the last 3 years, and over 50 percent cited Governmental regulations
as the driving force. Five months later, over 62 percent of the respondents to
-------
the second poll expected to change to low-solvent coatings in the next 5 years,
and again, about half (49.2 percent) ascribed the reason to Government regula-
tions. Collectively, the two polls would imply that "125 percent" of America's
industrial finishers would convert to low-solvent coatings during the
current decade.
I then asked (and the audience enthusiastically agreed) to conduct a
poll of the attendees. The single rule was that I would ask four questions
and members of the audience would hold their hands up as long as they could
answer the question in the affirmative.
Question No. 1: Are you directly responsible for an Industrial finishing
line as a foreman, supervisor or manager?
Answer: About 80 percent of the 200 - 250 attendees raised their hands.
Question No. 2: Do you know the State regulation for your industry, or the
State-adopted rule for your plant and the Federally-approved
rule,which may be different?
Answer: At least half of those with raised hands dropped then.
Question No. 3: Are you now in compliance with the VOC regulations for your
pi ant?
Answer: All hands were lowered except for eight. (These were conspicuous
because they were in two groups 1n different areas of the room.
They could have represented as few as two plants and certainly
no more than eight.)
Question No. 4: How many with your hands down expect to achieve compliance
by the end of 1985?
Answer: I saw no one raise a hand.
I then offered those with their hands raised an opportunity to leave
because the rest of my 25-minute presentation was directed to those with
compliance problems.
There were many written questions directed to me during the Q & A period
at the end of the session. Two seem worth mentioning.
1. Is the final compliance date January 1, 1987, or December 31, 1987?
(My talk had identified the key dates of 1982, 1985, with a delayed compliance
-------
order, waiver, etc.; and 1987 for those areas for which the Governors had
requested extensions.) My answer was "December 1982, unless your plant or State
received some special concessions." From the audience, the person who asked
the question (I presume), "Did Illinois get an extension?"
The other question, in effect, asked, "With the general conservative
tendencies of the Nation today, might not the EPA suffer a demise in stature
similar to one that OSHA experienced?" My response was that I felt that
EPA had already seen its darkest days.
Dick Dalton, Region V "VOC Specialist," was in the audience. He agreed
to join me outside of the assembly room to help answer further questions after
the session ended. I am grateful for his presence and assistance.
Attachment
cc: Dennis Grumpier (MD-13)
Dick Dalton (Region V)
Jack Fanner (MD-13)
Bill Johnson (MD-13)
Ed Reich (EN-341)
David Salman (MD-13)
B. Steigerwald (MD-10)
Darryl Tyler (MD-12)
-------
\\ >£HL\
-------
-------
Appendix 3.1
Can Coating Policy Clarification
(Reserved)
-------
Appendix 3.2
EPA's Enforcement Response
Where Bubbles Are Pending
-------
-------
Issue
What is the Agency's enforcement response for sources
subject to pending bubbles, specifically for bubbles in areas
lacking an approved attainment demonstration?
Response
The June 28, 1984 guidance on "timely and appropriate"
enforcement response for significant air violators addressed
the situation of timely enforcement for sources subject to
SIP revisions. The guidance states that EPA will routinely
issue NOVs, if not already issued, 120 days following the
violation (or shortly after) if the violation is not resolved
in accordance with the guidance. Follow up to the NOV is
warranted unless EPA determines, in consultation with the
State, that continued deferral to the State activity will
produce timely compliance.
Where the State activity is a SIP revision (bubbles are
SIP revisions), the revision must, by day 120, at least have
been scheduled for a State hearing and EPA staff-level review
shows it likely to be approved. Where the SIP revision is
unlikely to be approved, EPA is obligated under the "timely
and appropriate" guidance to issue a NOV on day 120 and
follow up with its own enforcement action as appropriate.
Sources subject to SIP revisions in areas that are
classified as attainment are not subject to the "timely and
appropriate" guidance unless a specific State-EPA agreement
addresses such sources. However, such sources remain subject
to enforcement by EPA. The criteria for deferral outlined in
the "timely and appropriate" guidance may be useful for
addressing such situations even though the timelines may not"
be applicable.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
2 8 FE j jc^
Date Signed
-------
Appendix 3.3
Recordkeeping
a. Feasibility of Daily Recordkeeping
-------
ISSUE:
"Is it Feasible to Request Daily Recordkeeping?"1
Response:
There are two parts to this question. The first is whether the SIP
in question is properly interpreted to require daily recordkeeping,
making it "legally" permissible to require daily records for compliance
determination purposes. This paper will not address that issue.
The second part of the daily feasibility question is how practical
will it be for the sources, financially and administratively, to keep
records on a line-by-line, daily basis, since that is the basis of many
VOC SIP provisions. This paper will first address the technical feasibility
of maintaining these records and then reiterate EPA policy in this regard.
One must look at the various possible situations that can arise to
determine the level of difficulty sources may encounter. These situations
can be broken down into three basic types.
The first situation is those facilities that use only complying
formulations which contain no on-site VOC dilution. These sources, by
definition, are in compliance at all times because each coating used is
in compliance with RACT and SIP requirements. Recordkeeping requirements
for these facilities would be straightforward. They would only have to
maintain records that show that they don't dilute or cut the coatings
before applying them.
The second situation is represented by sources which have installed
abatement equipment (add-on controls). The recordkeeping requirements
for this category should not be new nor should they be as complicated as
those required for the more complex plants. Generally, only routine
operational parameters would have to be checked and recorded daily as
described in the following "issue" on recordkeeping requirements. Automatic
recorders and alarms could he used for some, if not all of the important
parameters.
The first item deals with daily recordkeeping because
addressed in the question asked. However, the reader must
that the time interval required for recordkeeping ;1sisr'
regulations.
-------
The last situation will require the most effort to maintain adequate
records. This situation is represented by job shops that use a large
variety of complying and noncomplying coatings or ink formulations to
meet SIP regulations, including "bubble" requirements. These facilities
will have the most difficulty meeting a 24-hour recordkeeping requirement.
Part of the difficulty is from the resistance by the sources to change
present recordkeeping practices. For example, some companies tie their
recordkeeping practices to their inventory procedures and take inventory
only on a weekly or monthly basis. Also, other plants often record ink
or coating use by the "job"? which may overlap from one 24-hour period
into another. These procedures are generally not acceptable to meet
daily recordkeeping requirements.
In some cases, significant modifications may be required in the
operation of a process that may also require additional labor. However,
these costs should not he taken at face value by compliance authorities
since there may be significant process and emission control benefits to
improved recordkeeping. A shop which keeps better records, daily, by the
job or contemporaneously (real time), should have better cost control
because it knows more about its process, inventory, and emission control.
This would be true even if longer periods of averaging (greater than 24
hours) are allowed. This is especially true if the companies also institute
better methods for determining the quantities of different formulations
used. These methods could include continuously recording flow meters,
totalizers, etc. for determining coating and VOC diluent use.3
Given the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that there are facilities
which would have significant difficulties with recordkeeping on a daily
basis (i.e., daily VOC emissions cannot be determined, "or application of
RACT is not economically or technically feasible on a daily basis). EPA
has established
2 A "job" is usually defined as an order for a single identifiable product
for a single customer. It will require set up time as the proper rolls
or other equipment is installed. Hence the machine or line is down
both before and after completion of a job.
3 In addition, some recordkeeping problems can be alleviated if some type
of automated bookkeeping is used hy the source i.e., computerizaed.'•_
records for coating and VOC use, process variables, and emission control
parameters. This could greatly simplify the auditing of the process
line coating usage and inventories, especially if the source has adequate
monitoring and process control devices. . ,^_--„,,:-^
-------
a policy addressing longer averaging times. Sources which desire a
longer period must comply with the January 20, 1984 memorandum from John
O'Connor entitled, "Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission
Limits". This memorandum sets forth specific requirements for approval
of averaging times greater than 24 hours. Recordkeeping requirements are
directly related to the compliance time interval i.e., in order for
compliance authorities to make proper compliance determinations, sources
must maintain records on the same basis as is required for these (compliance)
determinations. Briefly the requirements of the memorandum are:
1. Daily VOC emissions cannot be determined
or application of RACT is not economically
or technically feasible on a daily basis.
2. Achieve real emission reductions consistent
with RACT control levels.
3. Have an averaging time not to exceed thirty
days.
4. Demonstrate that the new standards will not
jeopardize attainment or the reasonable
. further progress (RFP) plan for the area.
5. Have an approved SIP with no violations of
ambient standards or a revised SIP demonstrating
ambient standards attainment and maintenance of
RFP.
In conclusion, daily recordkeeping SIP requirements are appropriate
except under conditions as articulated in John O'Connor's January 20,
1984, memorandum.
In addition, the requirement to maintain daily records needed to
make emission compliance determinations, in and of itself, may not require
a source to compute its emission on a daily basis. In such a case, where
there is no emission computation requirement, the source must only maintain
the records needed to make a compliance determination for the time Interval
set forth in the SIP. The relationships of reporting requirements to
compliance verifications are addressed in the next two Issues of this
discussion. • • • ;:J?r.~l?'.I;?5^
-------
Appendix 3.3
Recordkeeping
b. Deficient Recordkeeping Requirements
In SIPs
(Reserved)
-------
Appendix 3.3
Recordkeeping
c. Type of Records that should be
Maintained
-------
-------
ISSUE:
"What Type of Recordkeeping Should be Required?"
Response:
Recordkeeping requirements should be tailored to the source and to
the applicable SIP emission limits or other Federal requirements. For
this reason, it is not possible to establish a universally applicable
policy. However, the following guidance should prove helpful in formulating
recordkeeping requirements for particular sources.
Ideally (and currently in some SIPS) records should be kept for each
line^ on a contemporaneous basis. However, due to a mixture of different
control methods, this may be difficult. Also SIPS generally require
compliance on a line and specific time basis, and therefore, this would
govern how records should be kept.''
Recordkeeping can generally be broken into two categories. The
first category concerns the formulation of coatings, inks, adhesives,
etc., and the second is information on the add-on control devices.
Formulations data which are needed are fairly straightforward and include
the following:
1. Properties of coatings, inks, etc., "as supplied"
by coating manufacturing plants on a line-by-line
basis. These properties are listed in EPA-450/3-84-019,
"Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile
Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and other
Coatings".
2. Properties of coatings, inks, etc., "as applied"
by manufacturing plants on a line-by-line basis.
These properties are also listed in EPA-450/3-84-019.
The definition of a (production) line may vary depending on applicable
regulations. NSPS regulations are fairly specific. Some cases may
also be defined in the SIP which could also require RACT compliance on
a coating by coating basis. .- ---
This basis may be different due to individual SIP provisions or where -
the source has received EPA approval for different recordkeeping requirements
consistent with the previously discussed January 20,.1984 John OM&irmor^ -
memo. In addition, cross line averaging is allowed-for carr coatef^*^^""
where the SIP does not specifically prohibit such averaging, as stated
in the December 8, 1980 Federal Register reference in the at)pve John
O'Connor memo.
-------
3. Quantity of ink, coatings, etc., used. This information is
generally needed on a line-by-line basis.
4. Type and quantity of dilution solvents used, generally needed on
a line-by-line and coating by coating basis.
5. Transfer efficiencies of coating processes if different from
those cited in regulations. Credit for higher transfer efficiency
may need to be documented and approved by EPA in some cases.
This is dependent on the CTG/NSPS category and the specific SIP
requirements. More specific guidance in this area is given in
the responses to the issues on transfer efficiency.
For add-on controls at least the following information^ should be
kept (checked and recorded daily) in order to assure continuous compliance:
1. Operational parameters on the capture system such as fan power
use, duct flow, duct pressure etc.
2. Operational parameters on the control system. These will vary
depending on the specific type and design of the device. The
use of appoved continuous emission monitoring (CEM), which is
properly maintained and calibrated, may negate the need for some
of the following information:
a. For carbon adsorbers: Bed temperature, bed vacuum pressure,
pressure at the vacuum pump, accumulated time of operation,
etc.
b. For refrigeration systems: Compressor discharge and suction
pressures, condenser temperature, defrost brine temperature,
etc.
c. For incinerator systems, flame temperature
and accumulated times of operation of
incinerator and respective process lines.
This, information is general in nature.The specific operating parameters
will vary for each type of device and manufacturer. Specific sources -..
of information which will be of use in determining important operating ,;
parameters include the following: . - .
(a) "Survey of Mechanical Reliability of Vapor
Control Systems for Bulk Gasoline Terminals",
EPA 340/l-85-!)D17
(b) The Background Information Documents on the
various yOC NSpS source categories.
(c) The control equi,)mpot manufacturer's
recommendations.
-------
3. Data used to determine recovery rates of carbon adsorbers and
refrigeration systems must be recorded on a daily basis if
continuous recordings are not available. This will allow some
recovery rates to be compared against VOC usage on the applicable
lines.' Therefore, records of VOC usage should be maintained
even where only add-on controls exist, especially if the source
uses a mix of compliance methods.
4. If solvents are not reused or incinerated, ultimate disposal
records should he kept.
Operational parameters should be checked by a source on a daily
basis in order to assure proper operations. The substitution of continuous
recordings, including emergency alarms for certain parameters, can be
allowed for certain daily checks. Stack (performanc ) tests required
after a system goes on line, must also be conducted if there are serious
operational problems with the source, poor solvent recovery, or important
changes in the process or control methods. In addition, since NSPS
standards generally identify compliance and recordkeeping requirements,
the compliance authority should review these standards when setting
recordkeeping requirements for similar facilities regulated under SIP/RACT
standards.
The compliance reviewer must also consider the hold-over (heel) of VOC
in the carbon bed when making a review. This hold-over of VOC from one
day into the next may give the appearance of excessively high recovery
one day and usually low the next. This aberration, in and of itself,
should not be' considered a non-compliance situation.
-------
-------
Appendix 3.3
Recordkeeping
d. Verification of source compliance
Based on Source Records
-------
ISSUE:
"How Can or Should Recordkeeping be Verified When EPA Cannot
Independently Determine Compliance?"
Response:
This response provides guidance relative to verifying compliance of
VOC sources. EPA and the States have at least six basic methods for
verifying compliance of such sources. These are:
1. Walk through plant.
2. Checking records to make sure the company is complying using the
proper formulation mix. This basically consists of auditing
records and emission requirements.8
3. Checking operation and maintenance records as well as VOC recovery
of add-on control systems.
4. Checking the operating permits, fire-safety inspections, and/or
insurance company premium/ policies to assure low solvent coatings
are used.
5. Testing emissions (stack tests).
6. Verifying (testing) formulations "as supplied" and "as applied"
as defined in EPA-450/3-84-019.
Generally, the first method (walk through plant) is not acceptable
by itself. As a result, inspections should include a combination of the
above methods, especially methods 1, 2, 3 and 6 listed above. Item 2,
confirmation of recordkeeping, is required to give companies the incentive
to keep accurate records and submit accurate reports to compliance agencies'.
The confirmation of records should not be too difficult a problem for
small shops because they either do not use a large number of formulations,
use only complying coatings with little or no VOC diluents, or use only
add-on controls.
8 This also includes those cases where records are kept on an.1t€«;byC"
item basis such as can coating where a "standard" coating use per^tem..
is used. However it is recommended that the actual coating used ^n;ta
production run be checked every so often against the "standard". 2 iv
- - -_ -- -
_ _, ,--~ ~ --,-.. — *•-,-,-, - I-
The source may use "prorating of production" if a production
run carries from one day into the next in order to compute .
emissions as regulations allow. This only applies if
production is constant, or known for the required (SIP) time
interval.
-------
This relatively easy confirmation sometimes is not the case with larger
sources. In some cases where the company has a number of lines using a
large number of complying and noncomplying formulations, verification of
compliance becomes a significant accounting effort. This is especially
true if the situation is further complicated by add-on controls for
some lines. However, compliance agencies must still check these sources.
If lines or a group of lines can be separated out for auditing this can
simplify the process so that only part of a plant need bp audited.
In addition, where line-by-line auditing is especially difficult, an
audit on a plant-wide basis may be a practical approach even where there
is no plant-wide "bubble." Although this does not result in per line
compliance, it can give a reasonable indication, a screening, whether a
facility is even close to compliance. However, for compliance purposes,
this overall plant-wide approach should not replace a line-by-line evaluation
where such compliance is required by the SIP.
Therefore, some combination of the aforementioned methods may be
required in assuring compliance of various sources. The auditing
of process records and testing of formulations may be the only way to
verify compliance in some cases, and the agency will have to initiate
these procedures if it wants to determine compliance of these sources
despite the significant additional resource demands required.
Much of the above agency resource demands may be minimized, or at
least better focused, by requiring improved reporting from the source.
Besides giving the compliance authorities some idea of what emissions are
being emitted from a source, it would also require the source to make the
computations to determine its emission rate. This in turn would give
some assurance that the source is maintaining some type of records which
can be used by EPA and State agencies in verifying compliance. Therefore,
as a minimum, quarterly reporting of emission exceedances is strongly
recommended wherever State regulations allow.
A. Emison, 'Director---K
Office of A1
and Standards
-. -,*w :
•• -•-.;;.«£& '.
1 -»VS._-^*»J'^M(^»aJ.n=B:.l*--,>
date Signed
-------
Appendix 3.3
Recordkeeping
e. Determining VOC Emissions Where Available
Records Are Not Consistent With Averaging
Specified in the SIP Standard
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN I 7 1986
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Issues #3(e) and #5 of the VOC Issue Resolution
Process: Establishing Proof of VOC Emissions
Violations/ and Bubbles in Consent Decrees
Resolving Civil Actions Under Section 113 (b)
of the Clean Air Atft
FROM: Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Directors,
Region IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
In the attached memoranda, I am answering two questions
that you identified as important issues in our Clean Air Act
enforcement effort to reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds ("VOC"). Specifically, this guidance responds to
issues #3(e), and 15 of the nineteen issues listed in a
May 20, 1985 memorandum titled "Results of May 3 VOC
meeting. "
The issues addressed by this guidance concern how to
establish proof of VOC emission violations (issue #3(e)) and
the relationship between pending or potential bubble appli-
cations and consent decrees (issue 5). The main theme of
the guidance on issue I3(e) is to encourage the use of Section
114 of the Clean Air Act to obtain information where data IB
not otherwise available to prove violations under the appli-
cable test method. The principle point of the guidance on
issue f5 is to emphasize that the current SIP governs until
any amendments are federally effective.
-------
-2-
This guidance is part of an Agency-wide effort to address
VOC enforcement issues and should be considered in conjunction
with the responses to the other VOC issues, which will be dis-
tributed by the responsible EPA offices as they are developed.
One major comment regarding issue 3(e) was repeated by
several commentors during the second round of review and is
worth mentioning briefly here. The comments suggested that
rather than attempting to fix recordkeeping problems through
§114 requests, EPA should work towards incorporating better
recordkeeping requirements in the state implementation plans.
For example, EPA could issue SIP deficiency notices where
the SIP does not provide for recordkeeping requirements
adequate to determine if the source is in compliance with
the SIP.
Our response to issue 3(e) is designed to deal with
those interim problems concerning recordkeeping which arise
prior to the resolution of the more fundamental concern of
poorly drafted SIP recordkeeping requirements. The issue
of how to improve the SIP's is being addressed by the Control
Programs Development Division. The attached guidance is
intended to advise you of the tools available to obtain
better evidence of violations, and my office's policy con-
cerning the use of those tools, until such time as they may
become unnecessary because of corrective SIP revisions.
I appreciate the efforts of the Regions in commenting
on the various drafts of the two following documents and
hope that you find them helpful in resolving some of the
issues concerning VOC enforcement.
Attachments
-------
ISSUE NUMBER 3(e); How are VOC emissions to be calculated
over a chosen averaging time when a company is not required
to, or does not, maintain records directly pertinent to that
unit of time?
RESPONSE: This issue is presented when the period for asses-
sing compliance under the SIP with the VOC emission limitation
(e.g., a source must meet a percent VOC limitation over a 24
hour period or instantaneously) does not correspond to the
records maintained by the source (e.g., records of VOC usage
are kept by the source only on a monthly basis). The issue
is also presented in other contexts. For example, a SIP may
require line-by-line compliance while the source records are
maintained only on a plant wide basis. The issue is important
because compliance determinations for many types of VOC sources
rely upon the records of VOC usage kept by the individual
company.
Where the SIP itself requires records to be maintained
that correspond to the SIP e-nission limitations, corrective
action can be taken under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act
to require the source to keep the proper records. This action
can consist of the issuance of an administrative order under
Section 113(a), or the initiation of a judicial action under
113(b). The remainder of this -nemorandum addresses the situa-
tion where the SIP does not contain such a record keeping
requirement.
There are four recommended techniques available to
determine source compliance with VOC SIP emission limitations
in the absence of a SIP record keeping requirement for source
records which correspond to the SIP emission limitations.
These four different techniques are primarily useful in four
different contexts.
The first technique consists of the use of mathematical
algorithms. A description of two different types of available
algorithms is attached (attachment 1). Both apply various
mathematical computations to monthly or yearly data to pro-
duce a figure representing the minimum number of days that
a source had to be out of compliance with the SIP emission
limit. This calculation is statistically based and does not
identify the particular days that a source was in violation.
Use of the algorithms may be helpful in settlement discus-
sions with the source and in determining a settlement, penalty.
Use of the results of the algorithms in a different
context, to prove violations at a trial or hearing, presents
several issues. Defendants can be expected to argue that the
Government may prove violations only through the use of the
appropriate test method, which would be the method specified
-------
-2-
in the federally-approved SIP, or if there is none, the
appropriate EPA test method in 40 CFR Part 60 (see 40 CFR
§52.12(c)). To overcome this point, the Government would
have to argue that violations can also be proven through
expert opinion testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
Rule 702 (Testimony by Experts), 703 (Basis of Opinion
Testimony by Experts), and 704 (Opinion on Ultimate Issue).
In order to use the results of the algorithms as evidence
of violations at a trial, the Government should be prepared
to prove the statistical validity of the algorithms through
expert testimony, and to show through the opinion of an
expert, based upon the results of the algorithms, that the
source had to be in violation for a given number of days.
The Government would not be able to prove precisely which
days a company was out of compliance nor which lines (or
how many lines) were out of compliance. The Government
would be able to show, based on the source's total VOC
output and the restrictions provided in SIP, that at least
one of the lines at the source was out of compliance for a
certain mini wr" perio:! of time. Sole reliance on algorithms
has the negative effect of calculating violations on an
averaging basis in what may be the absence of any SIP
provision authorizing averaging.
Because of these potential issues of proof and the
effect of averaging out some violations by using algorithms,
steps should be taken to obtain the data necessary to calcu-
late emissions under the applicable test method. Thus, the
second recommended technique to determine source VOC compli-
ance is to use Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to request
currently existing source records which can be used to
develop the data necessary to make compliance determinations
under the applicable test method. Items such as sales slips,
invoices, production records, solvent orders, etc., may be
available and useful in developing the necessary data for
the test method calculations. Once a case has been filed
discovery can also be used to supplement the information
obtained under Section 114.
The third recommended technique to determine source VOC
current and future compliance is the issuance of a request
under Section 114 requiring the source to prospectively keep
the necessary records. This technique is the most straight-
forward of the three and the one that should generally be
pursued. It may be the only option in the case where sources
have not kept records in a form which can be used, directly
or indirectly, to determine compliance under the applicable
test method. It may also be the only realistic option where
the use of existing records to develop the necessary data for
the test method calculations would be unduly time-consuming
and burdensome for the Agency.
-------
-3-
Under the authority of Section 114, EPA may require a
source to establish and maintain records reasonably required
to determine compliance with the SIP (Section 114(a)(l)(A)
and (B)). By issuing such a request, EPA would impose an
obligation on a source to keep and maintain those records
which are necessary to calculate compliance determinations
unJer the applicable test method. The requested record
keeping should be in a format consistent with the SIP emis-
sion requirements. Thus, if the SIP requires compliance on
a line-by-line basis and on a 24 hour average, the records
should be kept on the basis of individual lines using no
more than 24 hour averaging. Also, the required measurements
as to VOC content should be consistent with applicable EPA
test methods. For example, EPA should require in the
Section 114 request that data on the VOC content of a
particular coating or ink is produced through a measuring
process identical to EPA's method 24 or 24 A in 40 C.F.R.
§60 App. A.
As a fourth technique, Section 114 may also be used to
require a source to sample emissions in accordance with the
methods prescribed by EPA (Section 114(a)(1)(D)). Thus,
Section 114 may be used to require a source to conduct an
emissions test in accordance with the applicable test
methods. This type of Section 114 request would probably
be the most appropriate where compliance determinations are
made on the basis of emissions testing as opposed to an
analysis of the VOC content of the individual coatings
used. In certain situations where it is unclear whether
the coating or ink supplier is using proper test methods,
EPA may want to require the user of those coatings to run
tests for VOC content using EPA's approved test methods.
In conclusion, algorithms exist and are available to
estimate the minimum number of days a company was out of
compliance with SIP VOC emission limitations in the absence
of company records which are necessary to make compliance
determinations under the applicable test method. The results
of the algorithms are primarily useful for purposes of settle-
ment discussions or for identifying sources which should be
required to submit information under §114. While this guid-
ance Joes not preclude using algorithms and expert opinion
testimony to prove violations at a trial, the Government
should be prepared to prove at least some days of violation
through the applicable test method in the event that expert
opinion evidence is rejected by the judge. The records
necessary to develop this proof under the applicable test
method can be sought through a Section 114 request for
information where the company has data which can be used
-------
-4-
to develop the necessary records. Such records can also
be developed on a prospective basis through a requirement
imposed under the authority of Section 114 requiring the
source to maintain the necessary records. Finally, Section
114 can also be used to require source testing of emissions.
Future litigation reports based upon VOC SIP emission
limitation violations should, if at all possible, either
contain proof of violations using the applicable test method
covering at least part of the period of time the source is
alleged to be in violation of the emission limitation or
should contain a cause of action based upon a source's failure
to comply with a previous request issued under Section 114
for source records or testing. Prior to the referral of a
report, the authority granted EPA under Section 114 should
be used, where necessary, to obtain the data needed to esta-
blish some days of violation under the applicable test method.
Through the use of Section 114, the Government should either
have the evidence needed to prove specific violations, or,
if a source fails to comply with the Section 114 request, a
basis to proceed under Section 113(b)(4) for violation of
Section 114. Litigation reports relying solely upon
algorithms to evidence violations are appropriate only if,
after diligent effort to obtain more detailed data, stati-
stical proof through the use of algorithms remains the only
available technique.
If you have any questions concerning this guidance,
please contact Burton Gray at FTS 382-2868.
Courtney5 M. Price
Assistant Administrator
JAN I 7 i986
I
I
-------
Appendix 3.4
Determining if SIP Provisions are Generic: Bubbles,
Equivalency Provisions, Variances, and Similar SIP
Provisions (Reserved)
-------
-------
Appendix 3.5
Bubbles In the Context of a
Consent Decree
-------
ISSUE NUMBER 5; How Can EPA Include A Bubble In The Context
Of A Consent Decree?
RESPONSE; EPA cannot endorse a consent decree which contains
a schedule for compliance with a bubble until EPA has promul-
gated final approval of the particular bubble as a SIP revi-
sion (or until the bubble has been approved by the State if
the bubble is granted under a generic bubble provision).
This position is supported by existing Agency policy ("Guidance
for Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees" issued on October 19,
1983), Section 113 of the Clean Air Act and case law.
A consent decree must require final compliance with
the currently applicable SIP. The Agency's "Guidance For
Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees," states that consent
decrees must require final compliance with applicable sta-
tutes or regulations. Other than interim standards, a
decree should not set a standard less stringent than that
required by applicable law or regulation, because a decree
is not a substitute for regulatory or statutory change.
(See page 11 of the Guidance.)
Section 113(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b)(2),
provides EPA with the authority to initiate civil actions
to obtain injunctive relief to correct source violations
of the SIP. A settlement of such an action must include a
requirement to comply with the SIP provisions that formed
the basis of the request for injunctive relief. The settle-
ment cannot require final compliance with a provision not
yet a part of the federally approved SIP.
Case law also supports the proposition that the SIP may
only be changed through certain specific procedures and that
absent those procedures, no change can be effected to the
original SIP emission lovsls. Train v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60 (1975). The SIP, as approved
through a formal mechanism by EPA, sets the official emission
limits and remains the federally enforceable limit until
changed. Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. District Court/
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, 565 F.2d 393
(6th Cir. 1977).
A decree may contain a general provision recognizing
that either party may petition the court to modify the decree
if the relevant regulation is modified, as would be the case
with a bubble. The following language is an example of such
a reopener clause where EPA approval of the individual bubble
is required.
-------
-2-
If EPA promulgates final approval of a revision to the
applicable regulations under the State Implementation
Plan, either party may, after the effective date of the
revision, petition the Court for a modification of this
decree.
If a federally approved generic procedure is applicable, the
reopener clause should be modified to reflect the particular
generic procedures.
If a SIP revision that affects a decree's compliance
schedule is finally approved, decree language, as indicated
above, may permit the source to petition the court for a
modification of the schedule. A source is relieved from its
obligation to meet the existing schedule only upon final ap-
proval by EPA, or by the state if under a federally approved
generic bubble regulation, of the SIP revision and only upon
a modification of the decree. The consent decree may not
contain a clause which would automatically incorporate any
future bubble.
It is important to note in the above context that consent
decree compliance schedules must be as expeditious as.practi-
cable in terms of implementing a control strategy to achieve
compliance with the existing SIP and may not add in extra
time to provide for final EPA action on a request for a SIP
revision. The "Guidance for Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees"
states on page 12 that, "The decree should specify timetables
or schedules for achieving compliance requiring the greatest
degree of remedial action as quickly as possible." The con-
cept of expeditiousness was taken from §H3(d)(l) (applicable
to compliance schedules in Delayed Compliance Orders) which
was added to the Clean Air Act by the Amendments of 1977.
The principle was incorporated into Agency guidance issued
shortly after the 1977 amendments pertaining to compliance
schedules in judicial consent decrees, e.g., "Enforcement
Against Major Source Violators of Air and Water Acts" - April
11, 1978 (see pg. 4), and "Section 113(d) (12) of the Clean
Air Act" - August 9, 1973 (see pg. 2).
If you have any questions concerning this guidance please
contact Burton Gray of AED at FTS 382-2868.
Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator
JAN I 7 <&
-------
Appendix 3.6
Schedule for Low Solvent Technology
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2046O
-71986 ,
MEMORANDUM
* ~' ~ '
SUBJECT: Policy on the Availability of Low-Solvent Technology
Schedules in Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
acting Assis/cantr Administrator
for EnforcWient and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Your staffs have requested resolution of the issue of when
low-solvent technology (LST) schedules can be considered as an
available method of compliance in cases brought to abate emis-
sions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). They also asked for
guidance on what period of time should be givjen in a compliance
schedule. In response, we have determined the following Agency
policy.
Background
In earlier guidance addressing options for VOC control, EPA
encouraged the low solvent (reformulation) approach. Though
compliance dates in the SIPs were generally December 31, 1982,
EPA recognized when the earlier guidance was issued that it
could take longer than December 31, 1982 for sources to develop
and implement complying coatings. Through surveillance and
enforcement activities by the States and EPA in recent years,
it became evident that many sources had not made serious efforts
to find complying coatings or, in some instances, efforts
directed toward complying coatings failed to yield desirable
results. Often, sources were not vigorously pursuing the
alternative of installing add-on controls. As a result we now
face extended non-compliance, increased VOC enforcement activity,
-------
-2-
and a need to issue specific guidance on what is an acceptable
schedule for VOC violators where pursuit of LST is being con-
sidered. It must be emphasized that more than five years have
passed since the VOC regulations were first adopted by the
States. With the ozone attainment dates already past in many
areas, and less than two years away ijp extension -areas, it is
critically important to assure compliance in an -expeditious
manner.
.^Policy ,
LST schedules may be used in EPA enforcement actions as
long as the following five conditions are met:
1. The schedule must be expeditious. It can provide no
more than three-months from the date of filing of the
complaint (or equivalent State action in cases where
the State is pursuing the enforcement action) for a
source to demonstrate compliance using complying
coatings.
f
2. Add-on controls must be part of the schedule with a
commitment to implementation should the LST program
fail. The add-on control program can extend up to an
additional twelve months. It must begin at the end of
the three-month (or shorter) LST schedule and have
increments of progress encompassing: commencing engineer-
ing studies, ordering control equipment, commencing
installation of control equipment, ^completing installa- *
tion, and demonstrating compliance.*
3. Final compliance cannot extend beyond December 1987.
4. Stipulated penalties must be part of the schedule for
failure to meet incremental dates of the add-on control
program.
5. Civil penalties must be obtained. (This requirement is
established by previous policies such as the September 20,
1982 Post-1982 Enforcement Policy and the June 28, 1984
"timely and appropriate" guidance for the air program.
These policies are located at Sections V.R. and I.I.
respectively in the Clean Air Act Policy Compendium.)
Penalties assessed by EPA must be consistent with the
September 12, 1984 CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty
Policy, as amended, and penalties assessed by States
must be consistent with the June 26, 1984 guidance by
the Deputy Administrator entitled "Implementing the
State/Federal Partnership in Enforcement: State/Federal
Enforcement Agreements." These policies are located at
-------
-3-
Sections V.Y. of the Clean Air Act Policy Compendium
and Tab GM-41 of tThe General Enforcement Policy Compen-
dium, resoectively.
Schedules resolving State enforcement actions will be
evaluated in light of this policy to, determine the appropriate-
ness of EPA deferring to the State resolution. 'A State enforce-
ment resolution should include at least conditions (1), (2), (3)
and (5) of those required in EPA actions.
/
This policy is effective on the date of this memorandum,
except for the following limited situation. To allow for a
smooth transition, ongoing State settlement negotiations where
greater than three-month LST schedules are being considered
will be accepted as long.as the other elements of this policy
for a State enforcement resolution are satisfied. This limited
exception will terminate ninety days from the date of this
guidance.
This policy is not applicable to schedules issued pursuant
to Section 113(d). Approvability of those schedules is depen-
dent upon meeting the reguirements of Section 113(d). However,
in making a determination of expeditiousness for a DCO, the
concepts outlined in conditiqns (1) and (2) of this guidance
should be followed.
If you have any questions on this policy, please call your
Regional liaison contact in OAQPS's Stationary Source Compliance
Division or OECM's Air Enforcement Division^.
cc: Air Division Director, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUB-7BB6
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy "on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
A number of States have asked EPA to approve SIP revisions
granting compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources
in ozone nonattainment areas. The attached policy sets forth
EPA's position on when approval of such SIP revisions is
appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in order for
EPA to approve them. Regional Offices should review the
requests for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy.
SIP revisions now pending at Headquarters will also need to
be reviewed by the Regions in light of this policy.
Attachment
cc: Richard H. Mays, OECM
Gerald A. Emison, OAQPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
-------
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
In order to approve a source-specific compliance date
extension, two tests must be met. First, a State must
demonstrate that the extension will not"interfere with timely
attainment (attainment by the formally established attainment
date) and maintenance of the ozone standard and, where relevant
"reasonable further progress" (RFP) towards timely attainment. I/
The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1982, or the T
date established under Section 110 where the State has adequate-
ly responded to a request for SIP revisions under S110(a)(2)(H),
or December 31, 1987 in ozone extension areas. The demonstra-
tion may be based on a comparison between the margin for
attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted with the
approved ozone SIP 2/ and the increased emissions that would
result under the proposed compliance date extension. 3/ If
there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emTssions
(and the extension would not interfere with RFP), then EPA
may conclude that the compliance date extension will not
interfere with the attainment and continued maintenance of
the ozone standard.
I/ The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely
attainment is not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms
that an RFP analysis is reauired.
_2J For areas where revisions to the Part D SIP are required
(such as 1987 extension areas or SIP call areas) and those
revisions have not been fully approved, the State would have
to submit a demonstration the equivalent of that required
for EPA approval of the ozone SIP. Without an approvable
demonstration EP\ cannot determine whether the individual
compliance date extension will interfere with timely attain-
ment and maintenance of the standard, or with RFP. A
de minimus showing would not be acceptable, since in the
aggregate even very small sources would contribute signifi-
cantly to ozone formation.
3/ In making such a comparison it will be necessary to
determine what, if any, portion of the margin has been utilized
by new sources of VOCs that may have located in the area
since the SIP was approved, as well as by existing VOC sources
that may have already been granted compliance date extensions.
-------
-2-
If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial
chanqe in the inventory of VOC sources or total VOC emissions
since the ozone SIP was approved so that the margin of attain-
ment has channed significantly/ a revised demonstration in
support of the source-specific SIP revision should be submit-
ted. _4/
Second, time extensions also must be cohsis'tent with the
requirement that nonattainment area SIPs provide for "imolemen-
tation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable" [§172(b)(2)]. Expeditiousness /
should be demonstrated by determining when the source was
first put on notice of the applicable requirement (e.g.,
adoption of the current regulation by the State) and the time
that has elapsed since then. EPA has generally determined
that for most VOC sources this period is less than three
years. 5/ Any source-specific SIP revision for a compliance
date extension within these timeframes may be presumed to be
expeditious. Compliance date extensions for periods longer
than these timeframes, however, should be closely scrutinized
to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious.- 6/
This should include an examination of the compliance status of
other sources nationally in the same VOC source category
(this examination would be the responsibility of the State),
and the most expeditious means of compliance available (inc-lud-
inq add on control eguipment, process change, or raw material
improvement) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
4/ Such a demonstration would be necessary, for example, in
areas originally demonstrating attainment by 1982, but for
which post-1982 monitoring data are indicating exceedances of
the ozone standard or raising serious guestions about the
original prediction of attainment.
5/ For three source categories (can coating onerations,
graphic arts printing and automotive assembly plant paint
shop operations), based on industrv experience EPA has
through policy statements concluded that expeditiousness may
be longer than three years.
6/ The same holds true for review of individual compliance
date extensions incorporated in any area-wide ozone SIP
revisions submitted by a State (such as those being submitted
pursuant to an EPA SIP call under Section 110(a)(2)(H)). Any
change in the original deadline for an individual VOC source
incorporated in an area-wide ozone SIP revision must be
demonstrated to be expeditious (as well as not interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance).
-------
-3-
revision. Unless it can be shown that the original tiraeframe
approved in the SIP did not allow sufficient time for an
economically and technologically feasible compliance plan to
be implemented, a SIP revision for a compliance date extension
beyond the timeframes set forth above should be denied.
In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment
(including RFP where relevant) and maintenance and the
expeditiousness tests must be met before a State SIP revision
can be approved.
3. &p£ig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
*J6-7B86
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 21 (966
MEMORANDUM
Early Compliance And Stipulated Penalties in
VOC Enforcement Cases
John B. Rasnic, Acting Directd
Stationary Source Compliance
Office of Air Quality Planning and
ndards
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
In an August 7, 1986 policy issued by Craig Potter and
Richard Mays ("Policy on the Availability of LST Schedules In
CAA Enforcement Actions"), EPA disallowed any compliance schedules
in consent decrees which gave the source more than three months
after the filing of the complaint to reach compliance through the
application of low solvent technology. Two issues have arisen
concerning the application of this policy which we hope to answer
below.
RECEIVED
NOV 2 8 1986
ENFORCEMFMCASS
-------
-2-
First, consent decrees may contain a clause providing
for compliance through a means other than add-on controls
prior to the compliance date for add-on controls. Such a
clause could read "(Source) agrees to attain final compliance
by (date of add-on controls) through the following schedule
for controls, or by some other means at an earlier date."
The language should be general in order to keep EPA from commit-
ting itself to a compliance plan other than the add-on control
schedule.
Second, even if the source achieves early compliance through
low solvent technology, EPA will not forgive stipulated penalties
which have been incurred as the result of missed milestones in
the schedule for installing add-on controls. However, we will
not require stipulated penalties for the milestones which come
after the date that the source achieved compliance through low
solvent technology. The rationale for this position is that we
view the add-on schedule to be the "real" one in these cases,
and in order for sources to take that schedule seriously/ we
need to collect stipulated penalties until the time compliance
actually occurs. Including a clause allowing complete forgive-
ness of stipulated penalties would encourage sources to continue
to gamble on the possible success of low-solvent technology,
precisely the situation that we hoped to end by issuing the
August 7, 1986 policy.
cc: VOC Workgroup Members
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
DEC 23 1966
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Availability of Low-Solvent Technology ("LST")
Schedules in Clean Air Act Section 120 Enforcement
Actions
TO:
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
John B. Rasnic, Acting Director"
Stationary Source Compliance Di\
Addressees
Lsion
On August 7, 1986, EPA issued a "Policy on the Availability
of Low-Solvent Technology Schedules in Clean Air Act Enforcement
Actions" against Volatile Organic Compound ("VOC") emission
sources (the "LST Policy") (attached). The purpose of the LST
Policy is to ensure compliance with VOC emission limitations as
expeditiously as practicable. It does so by mandating that such
schedules meet five conditions in order to receive EPA approval.
The purpose of this memorandum is to answer the question,
posed by one Office of Regional Counsel, whether and, if so, how
the LST Policy applies to Section 120 administrative actions.
The brief answer is that major elements of the LST Policy do
apply to such actions, and that Section 120 can serve as a useful
tool in implementing that policy.
EPA drafted the LST Policy with Section 113 civil actions —
in which EPA has injunctive authority — in mind; the Policy
speaks in tens of conditions and requirements which LST compliance
schedules aoct meet in order to be acceptable to EPA. For example,
the LST Policy defines "expeditiousness" so as to require that an
LST schedule provide for compliance no later than three months
from the date on which the government files a civil complaint.
Section 120 on the other hand does not provide injunctive
power as such; by its terms, it authorizes EPA only to recoup
from a source the economic benefit of its noncompliance.
REC™"FO RECEIVED
DEC 2 9 1986
•Air Management Ci.. .. "*0(j!
DEC 3 ft 1986
AIR ENFORCEMENT BRANCH
EPA Ref ion III
-------
-2-
tfMa conformity with the structure of the Clean Air
Act, EPA daBrcquire under S120 that a source demonstrate compli-
ance with ^^B*«ble law as expeditiously as practicable. Indeed,
to read SlZflPkherwise would defeat its purpose, for a central
concern of Congress propelling enactment of 5120 was that existing
civil remedies were not effecting compliance expeditiously enough.
A key feature of S120 — its "penalty clock" which won't stop
"ticking" until a source achieves compliance — is intended to
spur speedy compliance by eliminating incentives to delay. In
addition, Congress wrote into the text of SI20 itself tight
deadlines for the administrative resolution of challenges to
Agency determinations of liability and penalty amount, so as to
speed the process leading to compliance.
Moreover, the same compliance considerations which led to
the LST policy apply whether the enforcement vehicle is civil or
administrative. These considerations include unacceptable levels
of VOC noncompliance and real concern over the prospects for
meeting deadlines for attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Ozone.
Therefore, it is the Agency's intention that the LST Policy
guide, to the extent possible, enforcement actions brought under
§120 as well as under §113. This has the following consequences,
among others.
First, Regions may import into S120 the LST Policy's
definition of "expeditious".^/ This means that EPA may require
that a source which proposes to comply by LST base its S120
penalty calculation on a compliance schedule no more than three
months long. (The schedule begins on the date the source receives
the 5120 Notice of Noncompliance.) For sources which intend to
comply by LST, but which cannot do so within the three-month
period, the calculation should be based instead on the costs to
install "add-on" pollution control equipment, over the normal
period required for that installation.
*/ The LljSpolicy sets out several other enumerated elements
whTch a ctjjfeconsent decree must contain in order to win EPA
approval. Tlp«e elements include provisions for civil penalties,
stipulated penalties, and specified increments of progress incident
to compliance schedules. While it certainly is acceptable to
include some of these elements in a S120 administrative consent
agreement, it is not appropriate as a matter of S120 policy to
require it.
-------
-3-
Secondygfegions should be mindful of limitations which this
approach ajflKcasent, given the nature of the §120 remedy. For
example, §tj^Kr«quires two calculations of the noncompliance
penalty, on^pfefore and one after compliance is achieved. The
second "revises" the first, based on the costs of compliance
actually incurred, which in turn depend on the means of compliance
actually chosen. Therefore, in a §120 action where compliance by
LST is not achievable within three months, but is achievable in
the same time it would take to install add-on controls, or sooner,
a source may choose to continue its LST compliance program even
in the face of the LST Policy, in the belief that that choice
would result in a smaller §120 penalty. To enforce the "expedi-
tious" compliance required by the LST Policy in such a case, EPA
might need to bring a civil action under §113 for specific
injunctive relief and expanded penalties.
Third, it is important to remember that §120 actions once
instituted must be properly concluded. For example, a §120
action cannot be brought merely as leverage in enforcement efforts
against a source, then dismissed once it has helped induce com-
pliance or once a §113 action becomes necessary. A §120 action
must be concluded pursuant to §120 and its implementing regula-
tions and interpretative policies. See especially "Permissible
Grounds for Settlement of Noncompliance Penalties Under Section
120 of the Clean Air Act" (March 19, 1985) (governing reductions
in penalties), and "Rules Governing Conclusion of Clean Air Act
Section 120 Actions" (May 15, 1985) (governing settlements of
§§113 and 120 actions against same violation). (These documents
are set out in the Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance
Manual at VII.L. and VII.M., respectively.)
The prospect of being subject to simultaneous enforcement
actions under Sections 120 and 113 should provide a source strong
incentive to comply promptly in response to the §120 action alone.
However, if it appears likely that a Section 120 action would not
by itself induce compliance, it may be preferable to bring a §113
civil action instead, so as to minimize the burden on EPA enforce-
ment resources.
We ar^hppeful that this guidance will clarify the appropriate
role for S»gin VOC enforcement actions against sources proposing
compliance Up conversion to low-solvent technology coatings.
Should you iUjre any questions or comments concerning this guidance,
please contact Laurence Groner of the Air Enforcement Division
at FTS 382-2820.
Attachment
-------
-4-
Addressees:
Reg ion|(gpo tinsels
Region
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I-X
David Buente, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
DOJ
4 '
-------
Appendix 3.7
Non Major ("B") Sources
-------
Issue:
At the present time all Class Al and A2 VOC sources
in the New York City (NYC) Metropolitan AQCR have
been identified and verified, and those which are
out of compliance have been placed on the signifi-
cant violator list. Region II would like to have
all Class B VOC sources which have an ERP > 50 TPY
and are out of compliance, placed on the significant
violator list. By doing this the Region would be
able to more accurately reflect its continuing
enforcement effort in the NYC Metropolitan area,
currently non-attainment for VOCs.
Response;
As noted in the Agency Operating Guidance for FY 1986-1987,
SSCD will be developing a strategy that addresses Class B VOC
violators in ozone non-attainment areas where control of such
sources is essential to attainment. This strategy will
become operational in FY 1987 (see attached for initial think-
ing on the elements of this strategy). One issue to be
considered is the possibility of expanding the significant
violator definition in FY 1987 to include selected Class B
sources.
Edward E.Reich,Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
JAN 3
;/•>->£
bob
-------
G. Class B VOC Sources
Develop general and area-specific strategies for dealing with
Class B VOC sources. Elements of the strategies would have
to include:
(1) identification of which source categories with
substantial numbers of Class B sources are significant
contributors to nonattainment in the areas of concern
(2) analysis of relative amounts of reductions likely to
be obtainable from such source categories, to determine
the most cost-effective areas of focus, nationally
and in each geographic area
(3) identification of the status of regulation of such
source categories in areas where they are important
and additional regulatory actions possible
(4) inventorying Class B sources (or at least the larger
Class B sources) in the source categories of concern
to each area
(5) determining compliance status of Class B sources of
concern in each area
(6) initiation of appropriate enforcement actions to
resolve violations
From a national perspective, strategy development would have
to consider:
(1) compliance determination approaches for large numbers
of small sources
(2) expansion of "t and a" and significant violator concepts
to selected Class B VOC sources
(3) mechanisms for obtaining compliance less resource-
intensive than traditional approaches
(4) penalty policies and methods of assessment
(5) public and industry education programs to enhance
voluntary compliance
(6) mechanisms for handling compliance data and any
necessary modifications to CDS guidance
-------
- 2 -
To begin to address the Class B VOC problem:
(1) SSCD has committed to develop during FY 1986 a strategy
(or strategies) for dealing with Class B VOC sources in
areas where their control is important for attainment
(2) The FY 1986 grants allocation targets $1 million for States
to develop and refine Class B VOC inventories
(3) The draft FY 1987 budget contemplates expanded efforts to
address Class B sources, as well as implementation of a
Reasonable Efforts Program
-------
Appendix 3.8
Distribution of Policy and Guidance
-------
Issue:
It has become apparent that EPA is taking a tougher
enforcement stance on the round II CTG's than was
evident in round I. Notice of this change came
through the August 17, 1984 Lillquist letter which
was an attachment to the October 2, 1984 memorandum
on coordinating key issues in VOC cases from Micheal
Alushin, Associate Enforcement Counsel. Although
Region III generally supports this change in policy,
we are extremely concerned about the method and tim-
ing of disseminating this policy.
This tougher stance on compliance represents a signi-
icant shift in policy. The novel distribution
approach of attaching it to a memorandum which
appears to have been intended for limited distribu-
tion leaves much to be desired. States have been
negotiating schedules over the ^ast year wh'Vih
reflect EPA's more laissezfaire enforcement posture
taken on the round I CTG's. This change in policy is
coming to them (and us) about one year late. As a
result, it will disrupt the processing of orders
and SIP's negotiated by States under our previous
enforcement posture and strain EPA/State relations.
Region III suggests that Headquarters reassess its
method of policy distribution. If EPA is to ensure
the timeliness and appropriateness of State enforce-
ment activities, we must inform the States of the
rules of the game in a timely and appropriate manner.
Response;
Traditionally, it is SSCD's approach to issue guidance or
policy documents to the Regional Offices with ongoing staff
support to respond to questions or provide clarification.
Subsequently, it is incumbent upon the Regional Office to
disseminate this information to its States in any manner it
choses.
In the VOC area, a Regional-Headquarters compliance
workgroup was established to be a focal point for VOC issues
and subsequent policy or guidance. SSCD chairs this workgroup
and has distributed numerous VOC articles and policy memoranda
through the workgroup members. The August 17, 1984 Lillquist
letter cited in the issue was distributed to the Air Branch
Chiefs on August 29, 1984, with copies to the Workgroup members
(see attached).
-------
-2-
In order to assue that all SSCD policy and guidance
memoranda are being seen by the Regional Office staff, SSCD
will institute a process of listing quarterly all policy and
guidance memorandum that have been issued. This list will be
sent to the Air Branch or Compliance Branch Chiefs. Where a
mem^'-nndum on this list has not been seen by the Region, a
request can be made for a copy. It will be incumbent upon the
Region to assure that appropriate memoranda are distributed
to the States and locals. The process of providing this
listing will commence at the end of the first quarter FY 1986.
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Appendix 3.9
Economic Feasibility of RACT
Non CT6 and Source Specific RACT
Determinations
-------
Issue:
What criteria should he used to determine economic
feasibility for non-CTG VOC sources? For CTG sources where
recommended RACT is technically infeasible?
Response:
EPA's definition of VOC RACT for ozone plans is the
lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility. This is explained in greater depth in the
September 17, 1979 snoplement to the general preamble on the
criteria for approval of Part D SIP revisions (44 FR 53761).
Where EPA cannot rely on presumptive norms, RACT for a parti-
cular source is determined on a case-by-case basis considering
the technological and economic circumstances of the individual
source. Hence, whether or not a source is addressed by a
CTG, no universally applicable decision rule can supplant
case-by-case judgment on what constitutes RACT.
In evaluating economic feasibility for RACT, the Agency
gives significant weight to cost-effectiveness. However, no
specific cost effectiveness threshold exists to determine
RACT. Numerous other factors (i.e., age of facility, quantity
of emissions, nature of emissions, severity of existing air
quality problem, extent of controls present, comparability
to standard industry practice in related industries, cross
media impacts, economic impacts, etc.) must be considered in
establishing RACT. It is conceivable, given differing local
circumstances, that a control option could be reasonably
available in one location and unreasonable in another.
Gerald A. Eimson, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Date Signed
-------
I
I
I
I
I
• Appendix 3.10
I
Sol ids-As-Applied
_ Determining Equivalency
(Reserved)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
Appendix 3.11
NSPS vs RACT Limits
Averaging Time Differences
(Reserved)
-------
Appendix 3.12
Regulating Total VOC vs. VOC
Coating Content
Dropped-No Action Required
Sources Must Meet SIP Requirements
-------
Appendix 3.13
Baseline Year
I
I
-------
Issue
What baseline year should be used for determining VOC
percent emissions reductions as per State SIP regulations?
Response
0 There is no one particular year that can be considered
to be the baseline year for compliance purposes for all source
categories. The baseline year is generally considered to be
the effective date of the emission control regulation for the
source category.
0 The SIP itself, however, should be checked to determine
if it contains language affecting baseline year determinations.
It is possible that in approving the SIP eiiher EPA or the State
commented on this issue, thus providing guidance to sources.
If there is no contrary guidance in the SIP, the general rule
stated above should take effect.
0 The stated issue and response relate to individual source
compliance rather than to a SIP planning baseline or emissions
trading issue. SIP baselines are defined in current policy and
the .issue of baselines relative to trading is covered in the
various Agency policy documents on trading.
0 The issue is only applicable to "percent reduction"
types of regulations. A regulation based strictly on "VOC
content" (e.g., Ibs VOC/gal coating or percent solvent regula-
tions, etc.) or add-on control equipment percent requirements,
would not require a baseline date as compliance would be based
only on a comparison against the SIP emission limits.
0 The "percent reduction" requirement applies to the emis-
sion rate as expressed in terms of VOC content, not to total VOC
emissions. That is, the percent reduction applies against the
pre-control coatings/inks formulations, not to the emissions
in mass per unit of time. This is consistent with the intent
of the CTG's. The pre-control coatings/inks formulations used
as the baseline' in determining percent reductions must be repre-
sentative of the coatings/inks in use at the time the regulation
became effective.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
2'c r
Date Signed
-------
Appendix 3.14
Site Specific RACT Determination
-------
Issue : Are there any site-specific RACT limits
being set?
Response: Site-specific RACT determinations are required
for > 100 T/yr stationary sources not covered by a CTG where
(1) sources are located in urbani zed areas that did not attain
by 1982 and (2) for urbanized areas that have requested an
extension until 1987. In addition, case-by-case RACT determine
tions are allowable where the CTG suggested limit has been
found to be technologically or economically infeasible. These
case-by-case RACT determinations must be approved by EPA as
source-specificSIPrevisions.
Site-specific RACT determinations have been^for a number
of > 100 T/yr stationary source categories not covered by
CTG's. Examples of this are Region IV RACT determinations
for aluminum foil plants, woodworking plants, etc. Region I
reportedly is making RACT determinations for a large number of
sources. For example, more than 30 site-specific non-CTG
RACT determinations in the State of Massachusetts will be
submitted as SIP revisions to EPA in the near future. Also,
a number of case-by-case RACT determinations have been made
for CTG site-specific sources in Massachusetts in the past.
Case-by-case RACT determinations are allowable under EPA
policy for both CTG and non-CTG source categories where
appropri ate.
The VOC RACT Clearinghouse is available and should be
used for ensuring Regional consistency in RACT determinations
for similar site-specific source categories.
Ger'al d /\. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
28 FE:
-------
Appendix 3.15
Seasonal Afterburner Exemption
-------
ISSUE
Is an exemption for use of incinerators in non-ozone
season appropriate? How can we justify suing sources for
failure to utilize controls during non-ozone season in SIPs
where there is no exemption?
RESPONSE
The origin of the policy on seasonal controls began when
EPA issued guidance on July 28, 1976 which authorized proce-
dures for the approval of SIP revisions allowing seasonal
operation of certain gas-fired afterburners. Such revisions
could be accomplished without a detailed, time-consuming
analysis of air quality impact so long as the seasonal shutdown
period was consistent with that delineated in a staff study
("Oxidant Air Quality and Meteorology," February 6, 1976) and if
the existing air quality showed no past violations in the months
during which the afterburners were shut down.
On December 1, 1980, in a memorandum to the Regional Offices
titled "Revised Seasonal Afterburner Policy" (attachment 1), EPA
further stated that any plan revision which provided for after- -
burner shutdown in the period of November through March outside
of southern California and the Gulf Coast should be proposed for
approval.
It is important to note that the policy applies to gas-fired
afterburners installed to control emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) for the purpose of reducing ambient ozone con-
centrations. It does not apply to flares (which do not use natural
gas as an auxiliary fuel), VOCs vented to boilers, afterburners
operated principally for odor control, or afterburners operated to
control toxic or hazardous substances. It is also important to
note that the policy on seasonal control of afterburners can only
be implemented through the SIP process. The EPA does not have a
general exemption regarding seasonal controls of VOC gas-fired
afterburners.
A second category of sources to which seasonal controls can
be applied through the SIP process are cutback asphalt facilities.
In some SIPs, control of these facilities is required only during
the summer months.
In 1984, EPA, through the Office of Air and Radiation con-
sidered whether to expand the categories of sources to which such
seasonal policies could apply. ("Seasonal Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Control and Phillips Petroleum," dated September
21, 1984 (attachment 2)) The decision was made not to expand
the scope of the policy primarily because:
- Only a relatively small additional cost savings could
be expected from any expansion of the policy.
-------
- Exposure to toxic emissions might increase.
- Pursuing such an initiative could disrupt VOC control
efforts at a time of uncertain implementation.
- Scarce resources might have to be diverted from current
programs to prepare the necessary administrative actions.
- The control flexibility in the program already available
might be jeopardized since Section 302(K) of the Clean
Air Act, passed subsequent to EPA's seasonal afterburner
policy, requires controls on a "continuous basis."
It was for the above reasons that the recommendation was made
to implement the existing policy as presently written.
Thus, the policy concerning seasonal control of afterburners
can be implemented only if a State submits, and EPA approves, a SIP
provision providing for seasonal operation. In the absence of such
a provision, sources are obligated under State and federal law to
continuously operate afterburners as necessary to meet applicable
emission limits. EPA expects sources to meet their legal obliga-
tions, and is directed by Sections 113 and 120 of the Clean Air Act
to take corrective enforcement action if a source fails to do so.
The justification for enforcing SIP requirements providing for the
continuous operation of afterburners rests with this directive in
the Clean Air Act. SIP standards are initially developed by the
States and can be more stringent than required by the Clean Air Act
and EPA policy. Once federally effective, the SIP requirements are
to be met by sources and enforced by the States and EPA.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
2 8 FEB 1986
Date Signed
-------
Attachment 1
PfJ-172-80-12-1-033
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: DC'. 0 i '980
•: Revised Seasonal Afterburner Po
FROM: waiter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality PI anhWfr'aW Standards (MD-10)
TO; Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
On July 28, 1976, the Agency issued its policy on the "Seasonal
Operation of Natural Gas-Fired Afterburners." This policy authorized
the approval of SIP revisions without a detailed, time-consuming analysis
of air quality impact if the seasonal shutdown period was consistent
with that delineated in a staff study ("Oxidant Air Quality and
Meteorology," February 6, 1976) and if existing air quality showed no
past violations in the months during which the afterburners were shut
down. Because of the nation's continuing need to conserve energy
resources and because of the revision to the national ambient air
quality standard for ozone, we have reconsidered a portion of this
policy.
An analysis of available ambient air quality data concluded that
exceedances of the revised national ambient air quality standard for
ozone do not occur in the November through March period, except for
areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast. As a result of this
analysis, it is appropriate at this time to modify the "seasonal after-
burner policy" to state that any plan revisions which provide for after-
burner shutdown in the period of November through March outside of
southern California and the Gulf Coast should be proposed for approval.
All other portions of the original policy remain unchanged, namely:
(1) The policy applies to gas-fired afterburners Installed to
control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for
the purpose of reducing ambient ozone concentrations. It
does not apply to flares (which do not use natural gas as an
auxiliary fuel), VOCs vented to boilers, afterburners operated
principally for odor control, or afterburners operated to '
control toxic or hazardous substances; and
EP* Form 1320-* (*•»• J-741
-------
(2) A policy to seasonally control afterburners can only be
Implemented through the SIP process. The attached staff
report, supported by air quality data, should be adequate
technical support for approving a SIP revision allowing for
seasonal shutdown of afterburners in a given location.
It is reconwended that you notify the State agencies in your
Region that EPA supports a policy which permits sources to shut off
afterburners during the months of November through March except for
areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast. Should you have any
questions in this regard, please contact Mr. Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards at FTS 629-5251.
Attachment
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment 2
SEP fc
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Seasonal Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Control
-•wend MO.HJ.P3-BatraJ.eum
*)Qget)n A. Cannon -
FROM: 'Joseph A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (AHR-443)
TO: Milton Russell, Assistant Administrator
for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PM-219)
This is with regard to your Memorandum of June 15, 1984, discussing
seasonal VOC control and the Phillips Petroleum Federal Register notice.
Your memorandum suggests that expanding seasonal VOC control beyond the
existing afterburner policy offers significant promise as a control
cost-savings initiative. You also expressed concern that the Office of
Air and Radiation (OAR) was attempting to revoke the existing seasonal
afterburner exemption in the Phillips Petroleum package. I would like to
address these two issues separately.
SEASONAL CONTROL
We can understand your perspective regarding expanded seasonal VOC
control since intuitively it is quite appealing to not control pollutant*
if they clearly are not causing an air pollution problem. . However, such
a seemingly simple approach has a number of potential pitfalls which need
to be considered prior to pursuing such an initiative. The Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS1) review of your recommendations
has reached the following conclusions:
- Substantial control flexibility already exists under the current
policy in the area of greatest payoff; hence, only relatively
small additional cost savings can be expected fro* an expansion.
- Exposure to toxic emissions may increase.
- The basis for no further control In several listing decisions under
Section 112 may be undermined.
- Pursuing such an initiative at this time may disrupt VOC control
efforts at a time of uncertain transition to implementation.
-------
- Resources in State, local, Regional, and Headquarters Offices may
need to be diverted away from current programs to prepare the
necessary administrative actions.
- -Hie substantial control flexibility already available under the
current policy may be jeopardized.
Our basis for these conclusions is discussed below.
No Major Payoff Can Be Expected
The VOC emissions can be reduced through incineration, other add-on
controls, or low-solvent technology. While a few individual sources may still
realize significant savings through an expanded seasonal VOC control policy,
the bulk of the savings available has been addressed through the existing
seasonal afterburner exemption. The consultant study prepared by your
staff confirms our initial conclusions regarding the limited potential
for cost savings from expanding this policy. The following is taken from
that analysis:
Twenty-three (23) RACT source categories were
examined to determine whether any of them could be
major beneficiaries from an extended seasonal control
policy. This examination indicates that most sources
within these categories are unlikely to have major
savings directly attributable to discontinuance of
existing VOC control measures under such a policy
extension due to the following reasons:
- They employ cont* ol measures which are integral
to the process equipment (e.g., submerged fill
pipes, floating roofs, etc.) and which cannot be
disabled.
- RACT consists of switches to inherently low
polluting processes (e.g., substitution of
solvent-based to low- or no-solvent coatings).
Such sources are unlikely to switch back because:
(a) .there is little financial incentive to do
so, (b) the quality of product using low or
no solvent coatings is acceptable, and (c) there
will be costs associated with a changeover.
- Several sources have no add-on or other controls
and, therefore, are unable to benefit from an
extended SCP because they currently us* bubbles
as an effective method of complying with RACT.
This attests to the success of the bubble policy.
- Many sources that can benefit from a seasonal
control policy already do so since they are
equipped with natural gas fired incinerators.
These are exempt from wintertime operation under
-------
-3-
the current SCP. However, it should be no~ed
that not all incinerators are able to use the
current exemption from natual gas fired incinerators
because: (a) some incinerators have dual fuel
capability and may,therefore, be ineligible for
exemption in certain jurisdictions, (b) some
sources seem to be unaware of the exemption, (c)
other sources have integrated their incinerator
into the general process and/or winter space
heating system so that the recovered heat from
the incinerator is now indispensible, and (d) as
is their prerogative under Section 116 of the
Clean Air Act, several State and local agencies
do not provide exemptions for natural gas fired
afterburners on a routine basis.
- For many sources, savings due to recovery of
VOCs are sufficiently high so that they have
no incentive to disable controls.
Major beneficiaries from any shutdown of controls
resulting from an extended seasonal control policy
will be those sources that use (or will use) end-of-
pipe control devices for RACT and can neither use,
sale nor burn recovered (i.e., collected) VOCs.
Based on this observation, the categories most likely
to benefit are: graphic arts (especially flexography)
and paper coating.
With regard to flexographic and paper coaters, only those who install
incinerators without heat recovery could realistically expect to benefit
from the policy (very few have), and they have already been addressed
through the existing policy.
Toxic Emissions May Increase
The most visible adverse impact to the public will b* the potential
increase in toxic emissions. The Agency has maintained that significant
reductions in toxic emissions will accrue through VOC control for ozone.
The majority of the chemicals being studied for toxicity as air pollutants
are VOC. Table I illustrates that 29 of the 37 substances under assess-
ment exist as VOC. Further, in some cases, it is not the primary constitu-
ent of the VOC but simply one of many constituents. For example, gasoline
vapor is a major source of benzene. Also, coatings are femulated with
solvents composed of many compounds which can and are changed. Hence it
is not a simple task to determine whether a particular source has an
adverse toxics impact or whether in the future it will continue to have
an adverse impact. Given this complexity, toxic emissions may likely
be emitted from sources in increased quantities if the policy is expanded
indiscriminately. Even if this were not true, the perception of its
possiblity would require greater reporting requirements and/or technical
support before the Agency could responsibly take such a general step.
-------
-4-
Basis for Section 112 Decisions Will be Undermined
Decisions regarding controlling or not controlling toxic chemicals under
Section 112 often hinge on the incremental environmental impact of additional
control requirements. The baseline considers the existing SIP and whether
there is a SIP requirement to provide some control. Expansion of seasonal
afterburners will undermine this basis. As an example, bulk terminals are a
significant source of gasoline vapor and benzene emissions. Lifetime risk of
cancer due to high exposure to gasoline in the vicinity of uncontrolled terminals
has a plausible upper bound of 1.2 X 10-3. This is the highest-risk source
category in the gasoline marketing chain for benzene and gasoline vapors.
While the Agency has yet to decide to control bulk terminals for benzene, the
existence of SIP requirements obviously mitigates the risk. This analysis
using the SIP baseline would be suspect if the Agency announced expansion of
the seasonal VOC policy allowing exemption periods for VOC. This same problem
will reoccur in a number of listing decisions presently being made.
Disruption of Present VOC Control Efforts
The less quantifiable but potentially greater adverse impact Is the additional
disruption such a policy may cause State agencies. States presently feel
overwhelmed by the demands the VOC program has placed on them. To add an
additional requirement to an already complex regulatory program may adversely
affect SIP approvals and compliance*.
Further, most of these regulations are to be implemented soon. Final
compliance dates have either passed or will pass in 1985. To provide sources
with a potential new vehicle to argue that compliance requirements should be
deferred may undermine the present Agency initiatives to move away from planning
and into implementation. This initiative runs the risk of being the straw that
breaks the proverbial camel's back.
Diversion of Resources
The administrative harden of preparing an expanded seasonal VOC policy is
not inconsequential. Rulemaking which could be as extensive as that which is
presently underway for the emission trading policy will be necessary to formally
promulgate the policy. Following issuance of the policy. States will hav* to
undergo individual rulemaking activity to provide for seasonal controls In
their plans. Subsequently, individual Federal rulemaklng will be required to
incorporate the State rules into the Federal SIP. Therefore, even presuming no
litigation, a significant fraction of what we, the States and local agencies
are presently expending in the SIP planning exercises may have to be expanded
on adopting and implementing this initiative. This can only be accomplished by
diverting activity away from areas where environmental improvement 'is being
accomplished (e.g., inspections, compliance activity. Group III CTG adoption).
Once the policy is Issued, processing SIP revisions is a nondiscretionary duty.
Significant allocations of resources will be necessary to address what is a
major administrative task.
-------
-5-
While the administrative burden is not insurmountable, it is real
and could adversely affect compliance. It will take an investment on the
part of States and EPA to surmount these administrative demands. The
available resources are limited. Given the lacJc of identified benefits,
it does not seem to be worth the effort.
Jeopardizing the Present Policy
Proposing an expansion of the seasonal VOC policy for notice and
comment is not without risk. As it now stands the present policy provides
significant flexibility to those who most can use it—users of gas-fired
afterburners. Reopening the policy introduces the risk of a challenge to
the entire policy, The present exemption for gas-fired afterburners was
adopted as a narrow exercise of administrative discretion. The primary
basis for approval was the natural gas supply shortage which existed in
the mid-1970's. The energy availability situation has changed significantly
since that time. Hence, this basis may no longer be available if this
policy were reopened. Moreover, efforts were made in the initial policy
to distinguish this from intermittent control systems previously used by
sulfur dioxide sources. Since this policy was initially issued, the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 added Sections 123 and 302(k) to expressly
require continuous controls. While neither development necessarily
invalidates the present policy, both result in additional complexities.
As your staff noted, there are those who would like to see the present
poMcy rescinded. By opening the Issues, you may provide them a vehicle
to accomplish the very opposite goal you seek.
For these reasons, I recommend we continue to implement the existing
policy on seasonal control as it is presently written. For all its
warts, the present policy works. It provides significant flexibility for
those who can most use it, has been accepted, and can continue to ber~
implemented without significant additional rulemaking or resource burdens.
The most prudent course of action appears to be to leave the policy alone. .
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) had no intention of revoking
the existing seasonal afterburner policy in the notice. The original
wording of this Federal Register notice explained in some detail why the
seasonal afterburner policy did not apply in this instance, and did not
place the policy into its statutory context, oven though the original
wording provided an adequate basis for disapproving this particular
application. Given the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB'
to ask for a statutory basis for EPA disapprovals when a policy
I think it is prudent to modify the disapproval language to reflect.*'the
statute rather than explain why the afterburner policy does not apply in
hopes of avoiding extensive interplay with OMB on this package.
I do not believe it has any precedential value for any future
exemptions the Agency might wish to pursue since we would have to take
notice and comment on any policy change to expand the use of seasonal
controls. It is not clear what you mean by narrowing our basis for
disapproval since there is no policy to ever approve such an action.
-------
-6-
Further, given the benzene/gasoline vapor toxic!ty issue discussed above,
using this action as a vehicle to announce consideration of expanding the
seasonal VOC policy seems ill advised. Based on the discussion above, I
have concurred on the disapproval package and have forwarded it to OMB.
Attachment
cc: Indur Gofclany, RRS
Michael Levin, RRS
William Pedersen, OGC
"^Bd Reich, OAQPS
Gerald Qaison, OAQPS
Carry1 Tyler, OAQPS
Barbara Bankoff, OAR
Paul Stolpman, OAR
-------
Table 1
37 Potentially Toxic Substances Under EPA Assessment
A. Substances that exist in the ambient air primarily as particles (8)
Beryllium
Cadmium
Coke oven emissions
Dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TC 0)*
Maleic Anhydride*
Manganese
Nickel
Polychlorinated Biphenyls*
Substances that exist in '
organic compounds (29)
Acetaldehyde
Acroleirt
Acrylonitrile
Allyl Chloride
Benzyl Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroenzene
Chloroform
Chloroprene
. Cresol
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dimethyl Nitrosamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylene Dichloride
Bthylene Oxide
ambient air primarily as volatile
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Methyl Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Nitrobenzene
Mitrosomorpholine
Perchloroe thylene
Phenol
Phosgene
Propylene Oxide
Toulene
Trichloroethylene
Vinylidene Chloride
Xylene
* Although these organic compounds can exist in the ambient air as either
particles or gases, these substances will be considered particles for
the purposes of this analysis.
-------
-------
Appendix 3.16
Transfer Efficiency
(Reserved)
I
I
I
-------
Appendix 3.17
Capture Effiency
(Reserved)
-------
Appendix 3.18
Intermittent Incinerator Use Where Both
High and Low Solvent Materials Are Used
-------
10
Issue:
Where incineration is only used sporadically when high-solvent
coatings are used, what type of compliance monitoring is required?
Is efficiency of the incinerator impacted by sporadic use?
Response:
The temperature of the incinerator is of interest only during
periods when the production process is operating. As a result,
the guidance below is appropriate only when, for example, a
printing press is actually printing.
The following records are essential for determining
compliance.
° The periods of time when the process is operating.
0 Periods of time when the average gas temperture of the
incinerator is colder than 28°C (50°F) below the average
temperature during thp most recent successful performance
test.
0 If a catalytic incinerator is used, all periods when the
average gas temperature of the device upstream of the
catalyst bed is colder than 28°C (50°F) below the gas
temperature during the most recent successful performance
test.
0 All periods when the average gas temperature across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of the temperature
differential during the most recent successful perfor-
mance test.
Sporadic operation of the incinerator should not affect its
VOC destruction efficiency if the temperatures are raised to the
operating levels used during the most recent successful perfor-
mance test before the solvent-borne inks, paints, etc., are
introduced to the line.
If a thermal incinerator has a brick-lined combustion chamber,
it may not be practical to shut the incinerator down during _ --"
periods when it is not npod^d because of the risk of spalllng the
brick lining if the temperature falls below about 500°C. The -
need to remain above about SOO°C would minimize the potential
fuel savings that would otherwise accrue from intermittent ~.~.,.
operation. .
-------
11
Issue:
Should a source be required to retrofit thermocouple wells
on an incinerator to permit temperature monitoring?
Response:
Generally, yes. The object, of course, is to verify
continuous operation under conditions consistent with those
under which the incinerator successfully passed the performance
test. The optimum location for a retrofit thermowel1(s) may
be different from the guidance above but shall be located so
as to insure that it (they) reflect the operation of the
i ncinerator.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Date Signed"
, .,<, -
-v-£s.
-------
Appendix 3.19
Appropriate Test Methods
-------
16
Issue;
What are the appropriate test methods for assessinq VOC
compliance? Where are the gaps, if any, between the need in
various contexts for measurinq VOC compliance and actual State
SIP test methods or EPA promulqated test methods?
Response;
The September 14, 1984, memorandum entitled, "Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Test Methods or Procedures for Source
Categories in Groups I, II, and III Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs)" gives an updated list of recommended source
test methods applicable to CTGs (see Attachment I). Some SIPS
may list different methods endorsed by others such as the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or others.
Some of these State reguirements were published before EPA
developed the methods presented in the att 'w^-nt. When a SIP
has approved a test method, EPA will abide by that method.
Changes to these methods can only be made by a SIP revision.
However, when the approved test method is different -from the
indicated EPA test method, we urge the States to modify their
regulations to be consistent with the NSPS test methods.
The September 14, 19B4, memorandum lists Method 24A for use
with Graphic Arts CTGs. Method 24A was developed only for the
publication rotogravure sector of the graphic arts industry.
Method 24 shall be used for analysis of inks for flexography
and rotogravure package printing.
When coatings are to be tested for VOC content, it is *
helpful if the results are reported on the VOC data sheet
described in the document, "Procedures for Certifying Quantity
of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other
Coatings," EPA-450/3-84-019, December 1984. Use of the VOC
data sheet and its implementing instructions will ensure that
VOC contents of coatinqs are analyzed and reported on a cons is- '*
tent basis.
Issue;
Can Reference Method 18 (gas chromatography/flame ionization f 4>«
detector) be substituted for Reference Method 25? ,",^ ^;,.,,g^-
Response; •- _: '•*-' • , ••-_•.,:- :~.^^^
Yes, but onlv in limited situations where the solvent <>r-~ ~~r~f}^jfz
VOC is a single compound or the identities-of--the coiupuiieiiLs"™aTe'f '^"^
known. Results of this method would be suspect if the gas . . ^'j®
-------
17
stream being tested contained a mixture of unknown orqanics.
Two examples of the latter would be (a) an oven exhaust where
a blend of "proprietary" (hence, unknown) solvents are evapor-
ated from a coating, or (b) the exhaust stream of a combustion
device that is or is suspected to be operating inefficiently.
It should be noted that Reference Method 25A, 25B, or 25C
could also be substituted for Reference Method 25, and in some
situations may be more desirable. Additional guidance on the
appropriateness of a particular method may be obtained from
George Walsh, Chief, Emissions Measurement Branch, ESED (MD-13,
RTF, NC 27711) .
Issue;
Is the variability of Reference Method 24, when used to
analyze waterborne coatings, acceptable?
Response;
Yes. Certainly variability in a Reference Method is
undesirable and we would prefer a more reproducible method.
The variability in the analysis is the result of calculating
the VOC as the difference between two large and independently
measured values, the weight of total volatiles (water and VOC)
and the weight of. water. To overcome this inherent imprecision,
one would have to either conduct a large number of duplicate
tests in order to calculate a statistically valid average VOC
content or measure VOC by an independent method. In 1980, the
EPA proposed in the Federal Register another version of Reference
Method 24 with an additional step, an independent measurement.
All who commented on the Federal Register proposal rejected the
alternative version because the additional step would be too
costly.
Reference Method 24, consequently, remains the best , >
enforcement tool available for determining the VOC content of ' t>t>
coatings. The inherent imprecision of determining the VOC '
content of waterborne coatings for enforcement purposes is
accommodated by adjusting the analytical results based on confi-
dence limits calculated from the precision statement established
for RM 24 's constituent ASTM methods. This has a disadvantage*-,
some waterborne coatings test at high VOC values that j
effectively immune from citations when corrected '.J
precision adjustment. One should remember, however
waterborne coating provides a large em issiionf^e
almost any solvent-borne coating. To
ing of the precision adjustment, a more
was given in a February 14, 1986, memorandum from Jack .
to Ed Reich (see Attachment II). . -/
•:£.••/SMffiS
v;-.,.3j:.|s
--.»P>fj|s-3j-
. •>i;/.'J!t
"> *••?--*« '*--r
• ..-.jr.^f.Jf
-•-. .::-$$gg
•"--33j£
- ,'.«»
•,.^K
• -"i>&
-------
18
Issue;
Can a Reference Method be developed for measuring the
volume of solids in surface coatings?
Response:
Method 24 does not specify a procedure for experimentally
determining the volume fraction of solids in a surface coating
When the method was originally proposed on October 5, 1979,
it did include a procedure for experimentally determining the
volume fraction of solids - the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) D2697-73, Standard Method of Test for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.
During the comment period, we received a very large number of
comments concerning potential problems in the application of
this procedure. As a result, it was deleted from Method 24
before its promulgation on October 3, 1980.
Note in Attachment III, the memorandum "Method for
Measuring the Volume of Solids in Surface Coatings" dated
January 24, 1986, from J. Farmer.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Ouality Planning and Standards
Date Signed
-------
Attachment I
UNITED STATES EMVISCXVE.-JTAL Pr.GTECT.G'. AGE.^
G-fics of Air Cjaliry P'anrvng a-c Scar.ca'cs
Research Triangle ?ar'<, \orth Carolina 2771 1
14 1S34
i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Test Metnods or Procedures for
Source Categories in Groups I,-II, and III Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG's) /fj ' '~ -
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director l.'/-"';'j^f
Control Programs Development DjYision
TO: See Addressees
Tne purpose of tnis memorandum is to update tne list of recommended
source test methoas or procedures applicable to the CTG's issued by tne
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) and to provide
direction on how to apply tnesa methods. This memorandum updates the
memorandum from Ecward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air,
Noise and Radiation to Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Regions I-X, dated April 6, 1981.
SuDsequent to the April 6, 1931 memorandum, numerous new source
performance standaras (NSPS) and associated recouaended test methods have
o=en promulgated for source categories covered by the CTG's. These
promulgated standards and reference test methods will be codified in tne
July 1, 1984, issue of tne Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 60.
The reference test methods are included in Appendix A of Part 60. In
addition, a nunoer of the Group III CTG's have been issued. In those -
cases where reference methods have not been promulgated, methods that
have been formally proposed are recommended and the Federal Register (FR)
publication is cited. In the aosence of proposed methccs, a araft method
is available from EMB.
The test methods or procedures for the Groups I and II CTG's are_.
summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The major change from the April.-6^1981^
version or the tables is the substitution of promulgated NSPS methods "
where applicable. The reference methods are essentially Identical-Ill7 "f '
principle to the CTG methods cited previously, but generally IncludeV^j
simplifications, clarifications, or improvements to Increase the^plraTtT-^
cality, accuracy or precision of the methods originally recommended in
the CTG's.
-------
-2-
It is important to note that the recommendation of a reference test
method in Appendix A of Part 60 does not necessarily provide a complete
procedure for the determination of compliance. The format of the applicable
regulation must be considered to specify how long a test run by the
method should last (averaging time), how many runs are required (replicates),
and whether or not any additional methods are necessary to convert the
VOC concentration to another basis (volumetric flowrate for mass rates,
or oxygen/carbon dioxide for an excess air correction). Specifically,
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 28, 2C, 2D, 3, and 4 are used, as appropriate, for
flowrate and excess air determinations. These methods are listed in
Table 4. The procedural specifications for NSPS are included in the
subpart for the a..ected source category in the "Test Methods and Procedures"
section. If the CTG format is the same as the NSPS, then the NSPS procedures
may be used as a guide. If the formats are different, then the NSPS
method should be used in conjunction with the procedures specified in the
CTG, or the applicable regulation.
Another consideration must be that for some of the NSPS reference
methods, it is necessary to refer to the source category regulation to
provide a complete procedure.
Two examples are the leak definition [compound(s) and concentration]
for Method 21, and the pressure change limits for Method 27. These are
not included in the NSPS reference methods and must be provided by the
State or local regulation.
The procedure recommended in "Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment" (EPA-450/2-28-036, June 1978) and
for the other source categories where fugitive emissions are covered has
been replaced by Method 21. Method 21 is the same as the previous
recommendation except that the instrument specifications have been
simplified. The rigorous analyzer specifications were found to be
unnecessary to provide reliable leak/no leak decisions. The revised
specifications require significantly less effort and record*eeptfig. The
specification of the calibration compound(s) has been changed to hexane
or methane in air at a concentration of about 10,000 ppmv. This provides
an alternative, and tests have shown that the leak/no leak decision is -. '
essentially not affected by the analyzer calibration compoundj^en^Rexam
and methane are compared. If commercial standards are not availabT*,~a
standard preparation procedure is provided In Method 18, "Measurement of
Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography,* promulgattd
43 FR 48344, October 18, 1983. --- ••*—----•-*-•--—
The recommended test methods for low solvent coatings and< printing
inks are changed to Methods 24 or 24A as appropriate. The CTG references
cite outdated American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures
and calculation procedures. However, if the NSPS methods are used, it
may be necessary to change from the NSPS units of weight of VOC per volume
solids to tne CTG units of weight of VOC per volume coating adjusted for
water.
-------
-3-
The recommended test methods for Group III CTG's are presented in
Table 3. • /
A list of the VOC and related measurement methods is summarized in
Table 4 and a FR publication date is given if the method has been promulgated
or proposed since July 1, 1983. A list of knowledgeable EMB personnel
for each method is given in Table 5.
One final note on which test method is Federally recognized, should
ambiguity on this exist. Where a SIP has an approved test method, EPA
will abide by such method. Changes to these methods can only be made by
a SIP revision. Where the SIP does not explicitly derine a test method,
man under 40 CFR 52.12(c) the NSPS methods as discussed above are appli-
cable. Where the approved test method is no longer the sa:ne as that
identified above, States are urged to modify their ragulations to be
consistent with the NSPS test methods.
Should you have any questions, please contact John Calcagni at
919/541-5665 or Bill Polglase at 919/541-5516.
Attachments
Addressees:
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Regions II, IV, VI-VIU, X
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, Environmental Services
Regions I-X
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
VOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions 1-X
VOC Compliance Contacts, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X , ^
Chief, Compliance Branch, Regions II, III, V, VII, IX
George Walsh
Winton Kelly • -
Nancy Mclaughlin "
John Rasm'c
Ed McCarley
-------
s g
01 Ol LL.
CM
<-' >, CJ
o <-3 t.
O
a.
O
CM
CM
-- o
5—0.
o
a.
'J
— O
O C
-0
Of I/I .
•a>—•
c *->:
5 3 u
u u t—
d) o
O
VO
o.
ex
LL.
O
O
«•
•
**•
CM
TJ
O
JE
4_>
HI
C_
O
0
VO
I/I
1 TJ
c
o
0.
ac
LL.
O
g
33
U «•
— O
CM
f°~
0) O
•o
0
Irt
-o
O
CJ O LJ
O
VO
L.
^^ fO
10 0.
10 as
o£
•4J
o
7V
to •
• ^-
a. CM
Q.
O •
»-
00-3
4-1 C O
«- a) a.
(T3 = £
o. S 3
<~ u
ec 3
LL. in O •
C 1
tJ 33
t_ .
• C O CM
LO — ^^
CM 0) O
O O -U
JZ J= <0 «C
4J jj — O.
x
o us
«• o.
o
I
lf> •
^^
ft"
Q.-0
O
<->
l_ :
O
<*- i^
O O "O
VO C
u 3
«•» C O
t- a a.
•o g g
a. r o
«- u
oe s •-•
LL. i/i U «r
O 1C — O
QJ C I
o s: la =0
x
CM 0) O
V\ r~ LO
•o -o — «•
O O J-»
J= JC *> «t
*j *j — a.
1 11 C Uul
o
OS
O
ej
"^
on I
C'
O
—
O. L.
c
o
O C C
VI — o
O C
I/I ••-
O
W
o
•o
c
o
I
> in
— 01 «
O C C
X
«"
«c
I
CM
I
o.
^
4^
t/l
•o
o>
OJ
Q.-D
o j=
iJ O »n
• i-s
(/I J-> 3
0)
l_
3
o
U
0)
U
Q.
Q.
Ol
tl
-c
-------
>»Sj
a
«J
o z o
a -3
•c
•o
I/I
rT
o
en
c
O) •—
Z U
^^
in
•w
o
•o
OI
u <
<§
O
3
•e
\r>
O I/I
f "D
4-> O
01 £
Z <-*
o>
•4J Z
CO
CO
o
1/1
at
(.
t_
3 j*
a u
(_ .* O
O C t-
O
Qj
a.
u
O -i£
*J C
«
z o>
C
o
z
i
CM
o o
V£> O
(_
ar a.
u.
"I
O (9
CM O '
Oi
(/I
QJ
Ol
uD
c
•^ o
c •^>
o u
— o
U •-
0) C
a.
V)
C
L.
u.
CSJ
a.
o
•=) ae
s> o
U
— o
1) 3.
O
o —
03 O
U
— *o
S. L.
C
o
I >Q l/l
I «3 t- 41
oi a. o oi i_
U f •— Q. 3
C 3 *- O -D
«S 3-— Ol
— LU O "C c tn
Q. 1/1 e o c
V1^<"^W ^ V V ^
^^ O) "^ "^" O*""" 2* OI
O I g U
oi "3 o i- a; 01-3
S. = t_ O 4J Q. c
I/) >
4^ in 31» uo
S o -S i^
g •— *J OI -J
S-JJ IB t- C =.
— 3
u e
O
S
—
01 o = O -e c —
8 f- it t C — C
O
— ie i C —
•«- z a; — u_
O
(/I
C
Oij O
"Si ri
I
CS4
Lf)
<•
I
OL
a
i
CSJ
3
LT1
«•
I
C. *J
u c
••- u
in
01
O
O
01 2
I
CM
i
o>
I/I
C
S
0>
J*
3
I
I
I/I
o
IB
*J
<^1
OI
u
L.
U
I/I
C
IB
O
o
O)
X
-------
5
3
C
CM
CM
; oi
z
o]
1/1
<
o
a.
?
o
»—
<_>
a.
3
cE
S S
_J U
c 2
u o
^* UJ
and
I/I
•o ci
o c
^z ••"
•U AJ
o» •«-
Z OT3
•0-5
O) W1 *J
•0^-0)
= **Z
oi e
g o> *j
i E ""
o 3 a;
u o t—
o o
Si =
M|
0) •«-
id-
u
6-2
i|)iner.t CTG pp
ons and
rocedures
Direct Observation by
c
o
4_l
ID
4- — «T
O <•> CM
4J I/I I
U •»- O
01 O
«/l £ in
C *— Ol
— OO (—
<
LT)
PO
1
ro
C*>
fO
•o
o
4-> Q.
L.
O
*§!
u i
> 41 t5 O ~
— Q. C t- O
O tO (O Q- J3
00 t-
c c c c o t-
O 4J O> C ••- I/I O
'•- C g •»-*•» ttS = J3
I/I Q) ^.+>
I
«c
a.
i
CM
I
Q.
in
to
0)
o
Ofl
O
OJ
c
0)
at
C
(_
«J
««
>»
(/)
c t. -a 4->
— c c —
O 4-* 3 ^3
3 -O O J=
•a i_ t- a.
O IQ ^D I/I
(fcg-f *
IX) 3 jrf
iu^- *
3 3J ^ -=
"O «0 .C 3
*
l/l
>a
0)
u
w
OJ
-------
c u u-l
cj Si !
= "O I *•»
S >, «r O
U 05 U £.
O Z 0) 13
t.
•o s»
o c
o —
zol
"3 — J=
O> +J
T3 —* 4>
C **Z
V C
§a> *•>
= to
5 &>
o o >-
0) O
= c:
0
0) i-
-- *J
j= e.
C *J
o c
v> c
•C
Q-
oe
u.
—• CM
to -o
o
Q. O
OS
in
cvj
•3
c
t. O
a.
4->
ce. (-
UB *O
\fi
•> rs\
*o —
to JJ
i3
o
T3
•D
C
Ol tn
> 3>
O •— C
^O ±£ Q
» e -3
O «J "3
O
C C
c-2 —
O) *j C
*J -fl O
C t_ I
•v a. ~
Z O <
C f-
O) —
> o
c
o
•o
•3
C
O
m
o
a.
a.
i
Ol
•«-> r>
(OUT) C
Z O C O
4-> fO Ol jC
c -^- o t- s:
O C C C >Q O
— O O «3 U ••-
U *J O C £.
ai ii O u
a. u (- c ic
c S ' a.^o -c -r
— c o z < <
o.
3
•°' J.
5
O -u
1
U
8
r
CM
O
in
m
«•*
o
i
30
r-.
i
CM
i
o.
CM
f^t
C
I
X
r«»
i
CM
rvi
o
i
i
CM
i
<
I
a
i
CM
in
««•
i
a.
I
CM
O.
UJ
o
to
r*^
I
CM
2
3
o
I
9
r«~
i
CM
OJ
>
O
0)
C
0) -^
O O
O
C
0)
L.
3
c
>o
0)
u
3
>
*-
*J = «_
41 UJ 3
<- a.
u —
3
c o
(U 4J .C
t- t. a.
•«- < - u
O C7>
(. •»- O
01 £ x
ja a. oi
^ w —
3 b. U.
I/I
C
m
O
O
•i1
0)
o
u
o
u
c
c'
c
i;
*->
x
-------
— ae
19 o
si
•kj «-l
c aj u.
1 = -!
5 >,«,'
••J ? i_
esc;
= -0
O
=
o
OO
•o
c
IB
O c
•te •*-
*-> 4J
0) -^
X O -0
•o~Ji
QJ (/» 4->
•a •—• a»
s^z
g a> <->
E s ui
o 5
X CO C
C t— •»-
«T "O X «-
c -^ o
• o; -c <-»
f* c. c •»•
CNJ a. « c o>
_ < c. o c
^ S-^"-
o • < -o
JC O I «. re
*J I— -J O O
OJ 4J 0) '•"
Q. t-
C d) «o O
t. t— C -*
1
il
I
-------
c -a
ai s; cj
I- fe =!
>-3 5
o ti «_ ul
O Z O u.
a.
cs
o
a.
a.
O
a.
cj
•c
c
fa
c_>
•O 31
O C
20
01 •/> <•->
73^-
5 5 0|
— out—
I ££ i
CT
Q.
Q.
<
u
a CM
CL
•o
se. o
- oi
O Vf> 4->
1O CM <«
*J • ^
t- 00 Q.
«0— O
Q. «-
•C Q.
ae o a.
u. f t>
o *J <
1> ^> in
vn
O)
u
O
t_
o
—
'o
c!
°
01 —!
— 4->
^2 QJ
TJ CO]
IS
< c
o
u
•o
c ai
IQ (_)
O C
•"• O
J-> J->
*J
cu •— c
a. c —
Ct U
c c =
e •»- O U
u *-» *-»
Oi — C
a. c —
in o >o
C Z Z
o
I
•a
o
.a
O)
o *-»
t- c
o 01
o
CM
30
I
ro
00
i
co
vo
§
ro
33
I
co
£
s
LU
CO
O
so
I
co
o o
in i/i
•o -o
O) Ol
a » s
in A
is> in
O
c
g
o
iH
4->
I/I
O) 1/1
si
^J «Q
0) 0)
0)
?£
ro O
Ol
O =
ca a.
1^ 31
>o c
(- O
3 O
*•> l_
V 3.
O
Ol
I C
I >v O)
SSCL t.
— o as
O L. **
a. a. ••• a, a.
L. in
3 C 0) "3
*J 0) C =
«- J= >, O
3 3>.= C
C — *J i)
,= *-
o
'• X
$ °
<« «-
L. •*-
O <
O
oo
-------
CI
o •_
•*• c;
> c.
— o
a.
o
O)
I
_
- 5
at
c •—
LU 4->
?
•o o
c
O
o
o
• in
-C u
o ••-
c c
ID o
O) —
PvJ
o
o
CM
u
•
o
c
o
Ol
4_
c.
s
u
l_
Ol
C
o
2
u
O
u_
C
o
c
u
a
fl9 •
O "3
— a»
*j t.
•e •—
z =
cr
U 3J
S a*
o t-
L C
01 ~
O rC
•• r^
I/I (SJ
1/1
•s OJ I
C )C
.•o •— •
L. :
Wh- '/I
c c
— J= O
C O —
C l_ *J
|Q
a;
o
3 . 0)
cr c.fco
o
c. u ai
— o e
< ^
•*- ~ o
O >g tn
o —
— c
* c
— c
"S
» c
Ml ••-
c o
•c o
4-> I
-3
C
e Z
ts "
0)
O
O
CSJ
81
u
o
•a
L.
3)
O C
U
• 2.
rvj to
•^ O E
u- C aJ
o
t_ to
-ea >,
01 O
• f— t.
/1 O •"-»
• t. C
J *J O
V (_)
U T3 O
•»- c a-
•s n — i
t- u
o — u
5 'o
• .c •>->
{•*> O UO
I/I
Jt
QJ
a.
OJ
X
o
O
4_>
o
I/I I/I
c c
C
O
c
O
|Q "3 3C
3 O O^
cy-e —i
I_ 0) •
< —
>•_ . Ol
o —. c
Ol f^ -^
O r-»
••-CM -
4- VO
• • m
> c
o u.
=) O
• 4J
SS
O C
u
O 0£
O u.
o
"o o
c •
•o e:
c o
Ol •*-
oi en
a. o
= ae
to
L.
II
t. ~~
Ol >*-
•3 O
c
IO
U.
O
•c
o>
•o
3
O
C
C
Ol
c.
L.
3
U
o
^j
0)
I/I
01
*O 2£
3
o
-------
Taole 4: NS?S Reference Test Metnods for Volatile Organic Compounds
Metnod 1
Metnod 1A
Method 2
Method 2A
Method 25
Metnod 2C
Method 2D
Method 3
Metriod 4
Met.nod 13
Method 21
Method 23
Method 24
Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources, 40 CFR 60,
Appendix A.
Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources wit.n Small Stacks
or Ducts, (proposed 48 FR 48955, October 21, 1983)
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S
Pitot Tube) 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Direct Measurement of Gas Volume Through Pipes and Small Ducts,
48 FR 37592, August 18, 1983.
Determination of Exhaust Gas Volume Flow Rate from Gasoline Vapor
Incinerators, 48 FR 37b94, August 13, 1983.
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate from Small
Stacks or Ducts (Standard Pitot Tube), (proposed 48 FR 48956, October '1,
1963).
Measurement of Gas Volume Flow Rates in Small Pipes and Ducts, (proposed
43 FR 48957, October 21, 1983).
Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular
Weight, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A.
Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases, 40 CFR 60.
Appendix A.
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography,
48 FR 43344, Octooer 18, 1983.
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks, 48 FR 37600, August 13,
1983.
i
Determination of.Halogenated Organics from Stationary Sources, (proposed
45 FR 39766, June 11, 1980). < * '
Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume
Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. _-.?
Method 24A Determination of Volatile Matter Content and Density of Printing Inks .."!ct-
and Related Coatings, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. : H :"=-• 1 , * : • ^>
Method 25 Determination of Total Gaseous NofinjgthaneJpirgajiJc.foi^
40 CFR 60, Appendix A. ~"~ '" " ,7
Method 25A Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentrations Using a Flame v;^
lonization Analyzer, 48 FR 37595, August Id, 1933. : . '-..--^
-,'rPi
Metnod 253 Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Nondisper-
sive Infrared Analyzer, 48 FR 37597, August 18, 1983. u"
Method 27 Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using "-
Pressure-Vacuum Test, 43 FR 37597, August 18, 1983.
-------
Table 5: VOC Contacts
Emission Measurement Brancn
ESED/OAQPS
Mail Drop 13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Researcn Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-(extension)
FTS: 629-(extension)
Specialty
Method 18 23 and Hazardous
Pollutant Test Methods
gas cnrcmatograph methoa
Metnod 21 and Fugitive
VOC Test Methods
Methods 24, 24A, and 25
Methoc 25
Methods 25A, 25B, 27.
Surface Coating, and
Gasoline Marketing Test
Methods
Flow Measurement Methods
(1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B 2C, 2D.
3, 4)
Contact
Mail
Drop
Kenneth W. (Bill) Grimley 19
Nancy D. McLaughl in
Any of above
13
Telephone
Extension
2237
Winton Kelly 13 5543
Gary McAlister 19 2237
Clyde £. (Gene) Riley 13 5543
5543
-------
Attachment II
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
FE8 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Jefferson County APCD's Request for an Opinion on the Suitability
of the EPA Reference Meihod?V4 ar\d 24A as Enforcement Tools
FROM: Jack R. Farmer, Direct?
Emission Standards and Eno/neeKihg Division (MD-13)
TO: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division (EN-341)
The memorandum of the same title, dated February 3, 1986, should be
discarded. We neglected to incorporate certain comments from your staff.
The changes occur on pages 3 and 4.
This is in response to a letter of October 24, 1985 from Mr. Michael T.
DeBusschere of the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County,
Kentucky. He requested an opinion as to whether the EPA Reference Methods
24 and 24A are sufficiently reliable to be enforcement tools. His concern
stems from a memorandum of October 15, 1985 by Mr. Dick Everhart, also of
the Jefferson County District. Apparently, the measured volatile organic
compound (VOC) content of a series of coatings tested by several laboratories
exhibited a wide variability. The variability was particularly severe
among waterborne coatings. Mr. Everhart recommended adopting the EPA's
"Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted
by Paint, Ink and Other Coatings," EPA-450/3-84-019, December 1984.
Mr. Gary McAlister and Mr. Dennis Crumpler of the Emission Standards and
Engineering Division have studied Mr. DeBusschere's request and the memorandum
by Mr. Everhart. They conclude that the procedure of repeatedly heating and
reweighing the samples as described in Mr. Everhart1s memorandum Is clearly
inconsistent with the procedure specified in Reference Method 24 (RM 24).
The deviation could have contributed to the extreme variability obtained by-
the participating laboratories.
The RM 24 is a compilation of procedures developed by the
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). An ASTM representative hastreported_
that in 100 percent of the complaints he has received.Jre$ar.d1ng
ducibility or poor precision of those procedures, the laboratories Involved.
had deviated from the established procedures. '
-------
You should be aware that certification of a coating through use of the
EPA's publication, "Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic
Compounds...," does not avoid use of RM 24. The publication merely provides
specific instructions and a set of data sheets for certifying the VOC content
of a coating'based on analysis by RM 24.
The VOC determination for a waterborne coating is inherently variable
because it is essentially the difference between two independently measured
values, the weight of total volatiles (water and VOC) and water content.
If the water content is a large portion of the total volatiles, as one would
expect in a waterborne coating, a small error in the measurement of water
content will result in a relatively large error in the calculated VOC
content. For example, if the total weight of volatiles is 8 grams and the
water portion weighs 7 grams, a 10 percent error in the water analysis
(i.e., 7.7 grams) would result in a threefold error in the indicated VOC
content (an apparent VOC content of 0.3 instead of 1 gram). It was for
this reason that the precision adjustment (which is based on the confidence
limits calculated from ASTM's interlaboratory precision statement for the
measured total volatiles and water content of waterborne coatings) was
incorporated into RM 24. It safeguards against falsely citing a coater whose
coatings are actually in compliance but measure in violation because of the
uncertainty inherent in RM 24.
Figure 1 illustrates the system. Suppose a coating has a VOC content
slightly less than "A," which is the level of the regulation the source Is
trying to comply with. Although in compliance, when tested the coating
FIGURE 1.
Increasing
VOC Content
Regulation I A
Limit
Indisputable
Violation
Z
Apparent /
Violation
Zone
Analytical
/Test Value
LLL LL
/Zone / ,
lljjj,:i..:*.
J>redsior
Adjustment
Compliance
Zone
-------
appears to have a VOC content of "B," an apparent violation. When the
precision adjustment "P," is subtracted from the test value as required
by RM 24, the VOC content as measured by RM 24 is "C." The coating complies
with the regulation.
On the other hand, if RM 24, which includes the precision statement,
indicates a coating is out of compliance, i.e., (B-P) > A, there is no doubt
the coating violates the applicable regulation.
If a truly noncomplying coating exhibits a VOC content anywhere within
the apparent violation zone, it will not be found in violation after the
precision adjustment is applied. As you can see, the analytical results of
RM 24's constituent ASTM Methods (D 2369 and D 3792 or D 4017) would have to
indicate a VOC content greater than "D" before the effect of the precision
adjustment would no longer show the coating in compliance. Any criticism of
the RM 24 would, therefore, focus on its inability to identify a coating that
is truly out of compliance but is in compliance because of the precision
adjustment in the method.
To overcome the inherent imprecision in RM 24, it would be necessary
to measure VOC by an independent method. The EPA proposed another version of
RM 24 with an additional step for this purpose. All who commented on the
Federal Register proposal rejected the alternative version because the
additional step would be too costly.
The "Procedures" publication was developed at the request of the
coatings industry. Properly used, it could relieve the coating user from
any requirement to analyze the coatings he uses. He could require his
supplier (the manufacturer of the coating) to furnish the VOC content of
the coating on the EPA data sheet. To use the data sheet, the Instructions
require the supplier to analyze by RM 24 and prohibit him from incorporating
the precision adjustment. The supplier should not certify his coating as 1n
compliance unless results of the analysis by RM~~2T (without the precision
adjustment) indicate compliance. The user of the coating can then, based on
the certification from the supplier and his own dilution records, prepare a
separate data sheet, certifying the VOC content of the diluted coating that
is applied to his product. Again, he too is precluded from using the precision
adjustment in his calculations for certification.
• ' • - "•'*"'"- •-"-';% 4. Z&f
The inspector, upon visiting a plant, would normally review the
certification data sheets. If they indicate compliance, the source would
be presumed in compliance. Upon occasion, however, he likely will wish
take samples and analyze them with RM 24 to assure that the coater and
suppliers are conducting their analytical tests properly^^The.Agenc "
analysis (prior to incorporating the precision adjustment) should not differ
significantly from the results on the data sheet. If they do, the analytical
-------
work on which the certification is based should be reviewed to determine the
reason, and to ensure the proper procedures are being used, and to ensure
the coating is not being misrepresented. Before making a determination of
noncompl iance, the enforcement agency would still be required to make the
precision adjustment.
In conclusion, RM 24, even with its shortcomings, remains the best
enforcement tool available for determining the VOC content of coatings. The
inherent imprecision of determining the VOC content of waterborne coatings
for enforcement purposes necessitates an adjustment of the analytical results
based on confidence limits calculated from the precision statement established
for RM 24's constituent ASTM methods. Some waterborne coatings that test
at high values before applying the precision adjustment may be effectively
immune from citation because of the precision adjustment. There is some
consolation, however, in the fact that waterborne coatings, even if marginally
in compliance, provide a large emission reduction over their solvent-borne
predecessors.
I hope this explanation has been helpful. If you have additional
questions related to the ASTM methods or RM 24, please contact Gary McAlister
of the Emission Measurement Branch at (FTS) 629-2237. If there is some
question about the VOC Data Sheets, please call Dennis Grumpier at (FTS) 629-5605.
Attachment
cc: Dennis Grumpier, ESED (MD-13)
Tom Helms, CPDD (MD-15)
Gary McAlister, ESED (MD-19)
John Rasnic, SSCD (EN-341).
George Walsh, ESED (MD-13)
Jim Mil burn, AMB, Region IV
Susan Wyatt, ESED, (MD-13)
VOC Contacts (See attached list)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 184 / Friday. October 3. IBBO I Rules and Regulations 65957
Several procedural and editorial
changes have been made to Reference
Method 24 (Candidate 2} and Reference
Method 25 as proposed in order to
clarify and to improve the sampling and
analytical procedure!. These changes
are based on additional information
obtained by EPA from experience with
the methods and oa the public
comments received.
Reference Method24
The following discussion summarizes
the procedural changes made to
proposed Reference Method 24,
Candidate 2. The procedures were
added to protect the source owner from
invalid results that might result from
poor analytical techniques, application
of the method to a coating not suitable
for analysis with Reference Method 24.
or imprecision in Reference Method 24
resulting from a high percentage of
water in the solvent
The promulgated reference method
requires the analyst to complete
duplicate analyse* on each sample
tested A comparison is then made
between these results and the wrthin-
laboratory precision statements for each
parameter. Duplicate'.analyses are made
until the results fall within the range
established for the within-laboratory
precision statements. The purpose of the
procedures is to verify that the analyst
can achieve a level of precision for the
coating under analysis equal to or better
than the precision obtained by
experienced analysts participating in the
ASTM studies of the method. Because of
the variety of coatings mat may be
subject to analysis, it is possible that
certain coatings may not be amenable to
analysis using Reference Method 24:
that is. in certain cases it may not be
possible to achieve results which meet
the precision limits. In this case, the
method provides for a case-by-cese
evaluation and development of a
suitable procedure.
An additional procedure Tor
waterborne coating* was added to the
promulgated reference method to protect
the source owiiei or uperetoi OiMt a
determination of noncompliance when
the owner is.actually in compliance.
This procedure is needed because the
result* of Reference Method 24 are
dependent on the difference between
the weight of total solvents and the
weight of water. As the percent weight
of water increases, the difference
decrease*. .A* a result any imprecision
in the measurement of the weight of
total solvent in water is magnified in the
calculation of organic solvent content
For example, if the total solvent of a
coating is measured as 100±2 units and
the water content is measured at sXtti
units, the organic solvent content would
be in the range of • to 14 units. The
magnitude of the range, as a percent of
the true organic solvent content
increases with increasing water content
and could, aa shown m the example.
lead to a conclusion of aoncompbance
even when the owner is to compliance.
The procedure added to Reference
Method 34 lor watarborDC *>~-*iTg'
protect* the owner or operator from this
erroneous determination by
the calculated value for YPC content
This is done, for example, by subtracting
the between-laboratory precision
statement from the average value of
total solvent and adding the between-
laboratory precision statement to the
average value for water content Thus, if
a source owner is in r^Fmp^^r^r baaed
on average coating values, the
compliance method will automatically
show a lower VOC content because of
the adjustment* made to the average
values baaed on the between-laboratory
precision statement*.
Based on comment* from
manufacturers that ASTM 2097 ha* only
been shown to be applicable to
architectural coating*, the analytical
procedure for d^tw™"1^^ volume solids
has been eliminated from Reference
Method 24. The commenter* stated that
this ASTM procedure was not
applicable to all the coatings mat
Method 24 was intended to cover.
Therefore, Method 24 requires that the
volume solid* be calculated from
manufacturer's formulation data.
The coatings classifications step to
the proposed method was eliminated
because industry comments indicated
that it was only necessary to separate
waterborne (water reducible} and..
solvent-borne (solvent reducible)
coatings. Therefore, die "Procedure"
discussed in Section 4 of the proposed
method has been simplified.
data be allowed in calculating VOC
content of coating* rather than lequiied
Method 24. Coatings manufacturers' ,
data will be allowed in csksJatng VOC
content of coatiofi because this will
reduce the burden on the industry to:
measure aU coatings with Method 2*.
Use of this method to ealcntate VOC i;
content of coatings will require ,
industries to closely monitor and record
all organic solvent* added to the
ceating* at the plant Method 24 will be
the reference method.
One commenter suggested that£PA
should specify the volume fraction of
solids for the various types of coatings
similar to the way transfer efficiencies
were listed. Based en comments from
manufacturers that ASTM 2097 has only
been shown to be applicable to
architectural coating*, the volume
fraction of solid* determination in
Method 24 has been removed. Method
24 specifies the use of manufacturer'!
formulation data for calculating volume
fraction of solid*.
Reference Method 25
The majority of the procedural
changes made to Method 25 relate to
calibration requirements and are mean'
to improve quality assurance and at the
same time simplify the daily operation
of the analytical equipment This i*
accomplished by requiring performance
tests on the analytical equipment
(nonmethane organic analyzer and
condensate recovery and conditioning
apparatus) prior to initial use: • 7>ecifi<.
criteria for the performance teit* are
provided. Routine daily calibrations
(much less time consuming than
previously required} are conducted and
the results are compared to performance
test reference values to determine
whether the performance of the
analytical equipment is still acceptable.
IB the promulgated test method,
several important system components
are not specified; instead, «"'"^f "•»
performance (pacifications for these
components are provided. The method is
written in *hi« nanner to allow
individual preference in choosing
components, as well as to encourage
development and us* of improved
components. Therefore. Addendum I
which lists specific information
regarding system components found to
be acceptable has been added to the
method to provide guidance for asers.
Specifics of the most important.
procedural changes that have been : ''•",
included to the promulgated teat method,
a. SscSan IX Applicability. This* '':";*
section was rewritten to clarify the ^^
appucaWHty of Method 25 in relation to*
several other organic i
--jf.!^irthermor«,»
that &e NMO analyser meet
performance test wi
added. Previoosiy. only slambnstrtf
of "proper sep
reduction sod
•MMMl^M^I. ' •" '\ •'- •"*
IWjUlIWisW *- . '. "'
3. Section 44 J PntostUak
The leak ch«i procedure is
Instead of evaoaung the sample
• . •-* f?*
• "£'r'££f!
-------
Attachment III
2 i JAN 1986
MEMORANDUM
>
SUBJECT: Method for Measuring the Volume of Solids in Surface Coatings
FROM: Jack R. Farmer, Director
Emission Standards and Engineering Division (MD-13)
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
As noted in your memorandum of September 19, 1985, Method 24 does not
specify a procedure for experimentally determining the volume fraction of
solids in surface coatings. When the method was originally proposed on
October 5, 1979, it did include a procedure for experimentally determining
the volume fraction of solids—the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D2697-73, Standard Method of Test for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in
Clear or Pigmented Coatings. During the comment period, we received a very
large number of comments concerning potential problems in the application
of this procedure. As a result, it was deleted from Method 24 before its
promulgation on October 3, 1980.
The ASTM, through its Committee D-l on paints, is continuing to
investigate more suitable procedures for measuring the volume of solids.
The Committee chair person reported to us in June of 1985 that some very
encouraging results had been obtained using a gas pycnometer. Results were
preliminary; the Committee is planning further tests of the instrument. If
this instrument proves to be reliable, it may form the basis for a new ASTM
procedure, which might be included in Method 24. In the meantime, we still
recommend the use of manufacturers' formulation data for the volume of
solids, as specified in Method 24.
-------
Appendix 3.20
Averaging Time - SIP Revision Policy
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and btanaaras
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
7
DECEIVED
JAN 2 0 1984
JAN 23
EPA, REGJCN III
MEMORANDUM . «K «F SW fl»Bl«
SUBJECT: Averaging Times for Compliance With - ---^"^
VOC Emission Limits - SIP Revision P^TibY HplV
^ - x ) \/\ v i
* '— f*^ %•«• "
FROM: John R. O'Connor, Acting Director^^j^ _
Office of Air Quality Planning aRti Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air and Waste Management "Division
Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Agency's policy
regarding emission time averaging for existing sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC's). Numerous State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, both
broad regulations and source-specific changes, ha"e been submitted which
provide for compliance determinations by "time averaging" emissions of VOC
for periods exceeding 24 hours. These requests aid the following poli y
on this subject were discussed extensively at a recent meeting attendee
by those Regional Offices which have the most pending actions (Regions I,
III, IV, V); the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and the
Office of General Counsel. This policy represents the consensus of the
meeting attendees.
The objective of EPA's national VOC emissions control program is the
timely attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and other regulatory actions
relating to VOC control must maintain the Integrity of this basic objective.-
There should be assurances that VOC emission control is reasonably con-
sistent with protecting this short-term ozone standard. Further, since
SIP's and associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual applica-
tion of reasonably available control technology (RACT), regulatory actions
that incorporate longer term averages to circumvent .the installation of
overall RACT level controls cannot be allowed.
RECEIVED
.M 3-.1534
SEP 41984
EN: .-. -J...-JT P:'t - * ErVi RiliJO;] Ld
-------
Current Agency guidance specifies the use of a daily v/eighted average
for VOC regulations as the preferred alternative where continuous compliance
is not feasible. An example might be where a facility operates in a
batch manner with multiple lines and various products. Reference is made
to the December 8, 1980, Federal Register (copy attached) where can
coating operators are allowed to ^bubble" several production lines and
average emissions over a 24-hour time period.
The preferred daily weighted average alternative may not be feasible
in all cases. Where the source operations are such that daily VOC fewiiiiuMi
cannot be determined or where the application of RACT for each emission
point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible
on a daily basis, longer averaging times can be permitted under certain
conditions. In determining feasibility, consideration might be given,
for example, to the extent to which modifications can be made to testing,
inventory, or recordkeeping practices in order to quantify daily emissions.
Also, variability or lack of predictability in a source's daily operation
might be considered as well as availability of control technology or the
physical impediment or restriction to control equipment installation. In
order to allow longer than daily averaging in SIP regulations, the following
conditions or principles must be honored:
1. Real reductions in actual emissions must be achieved, consistent
with the RACT control levels specified in SIP's or the control
technique guidelines (CTG's). These limits are typically expressed
in terms of YOC per unit of production (a qualitative lerm such
as Ibs VOC/gal coating). Where it is not feasible to <-pecify
emission limits in such terms, emission limits per unit of time
can be approved provided that:
a. The emission limits reflect typical (rather than potential
or allowable) production rate and operating hours. These
emission limits must truly reflect emissions reductions
consistent with RACT and are not simply an artificial constrain-
on potential emissions. This must be supported in the SIP
revision by historical production and operation data.
b. Nonproduction or equipment downtime credits are not allowed in
the emission limit calculation unless a Federally enforceable
document specifically restricts operation during these times.
Such credit must be based on real, historical emissions.
2. Averaging periods must be as short as practicable and in no
case longer than 30 days.
3. A demonstration must be made that the use of long-term averaging
(greater than 24-hour averaging) will not jeopardize either
ambient standards attainment or the reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan for the area. This must be accomplished by showing
-------
that the maximum daily increase in emissions associated with
long-terra averaging is consistent with the approved ozone SIP
for the area.
- 4. Sources 1n areas lacking approved SIP's, or in areas with approved
SIP's but showing measured violations, cannot be considered for
longer terra averages u-til the SIP has been revised demonstrating
ambient standards attainment and maintenance of RFP (reflecting
the maximum daily emissions from the source with long-term
averaging).
Meaningful short-term (i.e., daily) emission caps are desirable
especially for sources subject to large fluctuations in eniibbiuua. 7i,«.
use of a daily cap (equal to or less than current average emissions on a
daily basis) that limits short-term emissions to RACT equivalent levels
would meet the above objective of ensuring VQC control that is consistent
with attaining the NAAQS for ozone.
States have the primary responsibility to show adherence to the above
principles and, to do so, must include the following information (in detail)
in all SIP revision requests that seek VOC averaging times greater than
24 hours:
1. The VOC limits specified in an enforceable form with appropriate
compliance dates.
2. A description of the affected processes and associated historical
production and operating rates.
3. A description of the control techniques to be.applied to the
affected processes such as low solvent and waterborne coating
technology and/or add-on controls.
4. The nature of the emission control program wh rther a bubble, a
regulation change, a compliance schedule, or some other form of
alternative control program.
5. The method of recordkeeping and reporting to be employed to
demonstrate compliance with the new emission limit requirement
and to support the showing that the emission limit is consistent
with RFP and the demonstration of attainment.
Each EPA Regional Office shall have the primary responsibility for
determining the approvability of application requests. However, in order
to assure Regional consistency, coordination with the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards staff is encouraged during the initial
development of any single "time average" SIP revision or regulation.
Also, all SIP revisions involving long-term averaging must be proposed in
the Federal Register with an explanation of how the principles listed
above have been satisfied. „
-------
Should there be any questions on this policy, please call Tom Helms
(FTS 629-5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629-5516).
Attachment"
cc: Barbara Bankoff
Ron Campbell
Jack Farmer
Mike Levin
Ed Reich
B. J. Steigerwald
Darryl Tyler
Peter Wyckoff
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
-------