ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: … · Chemical (Dow) concerning the proposed rule’s applicability to Dow. A hearing was set for June 18. Subsequently, IERG,

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARDAugust 6, 1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONSTANDARDSAND LIMITATIONS: ) R86-18ORGANIC EMISSION GENERICRULE

PROPOSEDRULE. FIRST NOTICE.

OPINION AND ORDEROF THE BOARD (by 3. Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board on a proposal of theIllinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) to controlvolatile organic material (VOM) through a generic rule. TheAgency’s first proposal was filed on May 12, 1986. Afterconsultation with the Agency, the Agency suggested hearing datesin October. The first hearings were held on October 24, 1986 inChicago and October 29, 1986 in Collinsville. At hearing onOctober 24, the Agency submitted a Revised Proposal. Anotherhearing was held in Springfield, on December 11, 1986 at whichthe Agency stated that it would further revise its proposal. ASecond Revised proposal was proffered by the Agency at hearing inSpringfield on February 10, 1987. Another hearing was held onFebruary 11. Two additional hearings were held in this matter onApril 23 arid 24 in Springfield. At hearing on April 23, theAgency introduced another proposal for the Board’s consideration,referred to as the Alternative Generic Proposal. (AlternativeProposal). The Agency has recommended that the Board adopt theAlternative Proposal rather than the original proposal or its tworevisions. (R. 851). Additionally, the Illinois EnvironmentalRegulatory Group (IERG) filed its own proposal at hearing onFebruary 11, 1987. (R. 613). IERG later withdrew that proposaland submitted a modified version of the Agency’s AlternativeProposal at hearing on April 23. (R. 986).

At hearing on April 24, 1987, IERG requested an additionalhearing to resolve a controversy between the Agency and DowChemical (Dow) concerning the proposed rule’s applicability toDow. A hearing was set for June 18. Subsequently, IERG, Dow,and the Agency resolved their dispute, and as a result the threefiled a Joint Motion to Amend the Agency’s Alternative GenericProposal and IERG’s Version of the Alternative Proposal on June16, 1987. The amendment essentially removes Dow from theproposed rule’s applicability. As a consequence, the June 18hearing was cancelled.

The Alternative Proposal differs significantly from theearlier Agency proposals in its structure but not in its controlrequirements. The earlier proposals provided a blanket coveragefor the rule’s applicability with specifically listed

80—249

exemptions. The newer Alternative Proposal specifies four areasof the rule’s applicability. Presumably, a source that does notfall under one of these categories would not be subject to therule.

In general, the Alternative Proposal would impose controlson specified types of manufacturing process emission sources at aplant if those emissions sources as a group would emit 100 tonsor more of VON per year, if no air pollution control equipmentwere used, and these emission sources are not already subject toa control technique guideline (CTG) based rules.

The Alternative Proposal requires that RACT be utilized bythe sources subject to the rule. The four areas ofapplicability, proposed as Subparts AA, PP, QQ, RR, and the RACTrequirements for each are as follows:

Area of Applicability RACT Requirements

1) Paint and Ink Manufacturing Various operation,(Proposed Subpart AA) maintenance and monitoring

requirements; no quantifiedemission reduction.

2) Miscellaneous Fabricated 81% reduction in uncontrolledProduct Manufacturing VON emissions; for coatingProcesses (Proposed Subpart lines, VOM emissions not toPP) exceed 0.42 kg/i (3.5 lb/gal)

of coating applied.

3) Miscellaneous Formulation 81% reduction in uncontrolledManufacturing Processes VOM emissions.(Proposed Subpart QQ)

4) Miscellaneous Organic 81% reduction in uncontrolledChemical Manufacturing VON emissions.Processes. (ProposedSubparts RR).

As an alternative to the control requirements of proposedSubparts PP, QQ, and RR, sources may comply with the rule bybeing subject to an adjusted RACT limitation as determined by theBoard. The adjusted RACT limitation procedure is set forth inSubpart I of the Alternative Proposal. Generally, under thisprocedure, owners and operators would have to make a showingbefore the Board that the relevant control requirements asspecified in Subparts AA, PP, QQ, RR are not RACT for thatparticular source and that a different control requirement isRACT for that particular source.

Certain deadlines imposed by the Clean Air Act require thatthe Board quickly reach a final disposition of this matter. Ifthe Board were to adopt as final the Agency’s AlternativeProposal, the owners and operators of emission sources subject to

80—250

3

the rule would have to be in compliance with the rules byDecember 31, 1987, according to the rule’s provisions. The Boardviews this as a very tight time frame within which the affectedowners and operators might have to act, particularly given that anumber of time—consuming procedural steps are yet to beundertaken before final disposition. Most participants to thisproceeding have no major objections to the Alternative Proposal.

Accordingly, the Board adopts the Agency’s AlternativeProposal for First Notice. In taking this action, the Boardbelieves that whatever the outcome, final disposition of thismatter will proceed in as timely a fashion as possible. TheBoard cautions that this action in no way constitutes adetermination by the Board on the ultimate merits of the proposedrules.

The Board has held seven merit hearings in this mattergenerating a transcript with over 1200 pages, and it believesthat further merit hearings are unnecessary. Consequently, theBoard considers the merit record in this proceeding closed exceptfor the submission of final comments by interested persons.Final comments on the merit record are due by the end of theFirst Notice comment period. In addition, since the Board isproposing this rule for First Notice, any person may presenttheir views and comments concerning the proposed rule or requesta public hearing pursuant to the procedures of Section 5.01 ofthe Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1986Supp., ch. 127, par 1005.01.

Since the Board is not presently making a substantivedetermination with respect to this proposed rule, it will not atthis time address the issue as to whether Viskase Corporation(Viskase) should be subject to the proposed rule. However, theBoard requests that Viskase, in its comments, state its positionas to whether the proposed rule’s adjusted RACT procedure wouldprovide a satisfactory means of addressing Viskase’s concerns.

In an effort to discern the Agency’s position more clearly,the Board hereby orders that the Agency address the followingspecific points in its final comments.

1) In its Alternative Generic Proposal, the Agency has proposedSubparts AA, PP, QQ, RR. Certain language defining eachSubpart’s applicability is common to the four proposedsubparts. Specifically, the scope of applicability for eachsupbart “includes process emission sources not subject toSubparts B, B, F, N. P1 Q, R, S, U, X, Y, or Z of thisPart....” This implies that the proposed generic rule mayapply to emission sources that are subject to Subparts notlisted above, such as Subparts C, K, T, V, and W. Is this aproper interpretation? If the generic rule does apply toemission sources which are subject to the controlrequirements of other subparts, do the control requirementsof the generic rule take precedence over the control

80—251

4

requirements of the other subparts? Or is the conversetrue? An analogous problem would develop if VOM is defineddifferently in the generic rule with respect to itsdefinition in another applicable subpart. If two differentdefinitions of VOM could be applicable to the same emissionsource, which definition would control?

2) Three of the proposed generic subparts PP, QQ, and RR,contain the same language with respect to two subsections.Proposed subsection(b) of Sections 215.920, 215.940 and215.960 reads as follows:

b) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply, except asprovided in Subsection (e) below, to [a specified]manufacturing processes at a plant, which plant includesprocess emission sources not subject to Subparts B, E,F, N, P1 Q, R, S, U, X, Y, or Z of this Part, and whichprocess emission sources as a group would emit 100 tonsor more per year of volatile organic material if no airpollution control equipment were used.

Subsection (e) of Sections 215.920, 215.940 and 215.960states:

e) Notwithstandincj Subsection (h) above, the provisions ofthis Subpart do not apply to emission sources which areregulated under Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X,Y, or Z of this Part, including emission sources whichwould be subject to limits under these Subparts if thesources had sufficient size, throughout or emissions,and emission sources which meet specific exemptionscontained in these Subparts.

A plain reading of these two subsections does not clearlyindicate the necessity of Subsection (e) in light of thestatement of applicability in Subsection (b). In otherwords, what is the effective difference in scopeapplicability between the two subsections? If there is adifference, can the Agency suggest alternative language whichwould further elucidate that difference?

3) The Alternative Proposal describes specific areas ofapplicability. Previous Agency proposals were structuredsuch that there was a general umbrella of applicability withspecific exemptions to that coverage. As a result, sourceswhich were once “exempt” under the earlier proposals are nowmerely not included in the areas applicability under theAlternative Proposal. In the process of developing theseproposals, the Agency has evaluated categories of sources anddecided that the rule’s applicability to these categories isnot warranted.

On a category—by—category basis, the Board requests that theAgency state, in summary fashion, the general factors or

80—252

5

reasons, economically and technically based, behind theAgency’s conclusion that the proposed generic rule should notapply. In addition, citations to the record, wheneverpossible, would further aid the Board in reviewing thisissue. This request supersedes the similar requests made byDr. Rao and the Hearing Officer at hearing on April 23. (R.915, 1028).

Motions

There are several outstanding motions in this matter whichneed to he addressed by the Board. At hearing on April 24, 1987,IERG orally moved for more hearings in this matter or, in thealternative, to establish a separate docket so that two issuescould be explored further. The issues are whether the countiesof McHenry, Kane, DuPage and Will should be included in theproposed generic rule’s area of applicability and whether it isproper to base a rule for the control of hydrocarbon emissions onthe EKMA model. (R. 1115—1116). IERG agreed to submit the motionin writing to the Board so the Agency could likewise respond inwriting. (R. 1120).

On May 27, 1987, the Agency filed a Motion to Close theMerit Record. In its motion, the Agency states that since IERGhad, at that point, not yet filed its written motion as promisedat the April 24 hearing, IERG’s motion should be denied. TheAgency requests that a date closing the record be set becausefurther delay would “jeopardize the needed timely progression ofthis regulation”.

On May 29, 1987, IERG filed an Objection to the Agency’sMotion to Close the Merit Record as well as a Motion to Establisha Separate Docket, which was the written follow—up to IERG’s oralmotion at the April 24th hearing. In its Objection, IERG statesthat it needed to wait until transcripts of the April hearingsbecame available before it could submit a written motion aspromised at hearing on April 24. In its written Motion toEstablish a Separate Docket, IERG refers the Board to IERG’sargument that it presented at the April 24 hearing when it orallyrequested additional hearings or a separate docket. In itswritten motion, IERG is only requesting a separate docket inorder to “address the issue of the applicability of this proposedrule to McHenry, Will, Kane, and DuPage Counties and use of theEKMA model”. IERG further states that it does not intend to“delay the timely progression of the proposed generic rule; theestablishment of a separate docket would allow the technicalmerit issue to move forward”.

All—Steel, Inc. (All—Steel) filed its Response to theAgency’s Motion to Close the Merit Record on June 2.Essentially, All—Steel requests that the Board not close themerit record until All—Steel filed its response to questionsposed to All—Steel by the Agency at the April 24 hearing. TheBoard notes that All—Steel filed its response on June 19, 1987.

80—253

6

As a result of a June 11 conversation with counsel for theAgency, the Hearing Officer discovered that the May 29 filings ofIERG and the June 2 filing of All—Steel were never served uponthe Agency. The service list attached to the filings did notinclude the Agency. The Hearing Officer issued an orderrequiring that in the future, the Agency be served with allfilings. The Hearing Officer supplied the Agency with Boardcopies of the filings at issue. At the time the Hearing Officerissued his Order, he spoke with one counsel for IERG who statedthat the failure to serve the filings on the Agency wasunintentional. Also, subsequent to the Order, the HearingOfficer received a letter from All—Steel stating that its failureto serve the Agency was inadvertant.

The Agency filed four motions on April 23, 1987. The firstis a motion which requests leave to file the remaining threemotions instanter. That motion is granted. Next, the Agencymoves to strike All—Steel’s Response to the Agency’s Notion toClose the Merit Record due to All—Steel’s failure to serve itsfiling on the Agency. Similarly, the Agency also moved to strikeIERG’s May 29 filings for failure to serve the Agency. Finally,the Agency filed its Response to IERG’s Motion to Establish aSeparate Docket, the substance of which will be discussed later.

All—Steel filed a Response to the Agency’s Motion to Strikeon June 25, 1987. IERG also filed a Response on July 9, 1987.Generally, both All—Steel and IERG assert that the failure toserve the Agency was unintentional and that their respectivefilings should not be stricken.

Since the Board by its action today is setting a date forthe close of the merit record, the Agency’s Motion to Close theRecord is moot. Similarly, IERG’s Response and All—Steel’sResponse to the Agency’s Notion to Close the Merit Record, theAgency’s motions to strike those responses for failing to servethe Agency, and IERG’s and All—Steel’s Responses to the Agency’smotions to strike the responses are moot. Agency’s Motion toStrike IERG’s Notion for a Separate Docket due to IERG’s failureto serve the Agency is denied. The Board shares the HearingOfficer’s view, as stated in his June 11 Order, that it isreasonable to expect that the proponent of a rulemaking be servedwith motions. However, in this instance it appears that IERG’sfailure to serve the Agency was inadvertant. The Agencyeventually received the IERG’s motion and was given anopportunity to file a response. As a result, the Board does notfind it necessary to strike IERG’s motion. Instead, the Boardwill decide IERG’s Motion to Establish a Separate Docket and theAgency’s response on their merits.

IERG’s Motion to Establish a Separate Docket is based uponthe position that the record contains sufficient information towarrant further investigation of the issues of whether theproposed generic rule should apply to McHenry, Will, Kane, and

80—254

7

DuPage counties and whether it is proper to use the EKMA model asa basis for the proposed rule. IERG refers the Board to thearguments that it presented at the April 24 hearing in support ofits motion.

With regard to the county issue, IERG stated at hearing,

With respect to Mcflenry and Will, it is clearthose are~ not presently designated asattainment counties. With respect to Kaneand DuPage counties, we believe that LJSEPA isunder an obligation to move forward withrulemaking under the Seventh Circuit decisionand it would be improper to be adopted [sic]regulations imposing RACT since USEPA has, ineffect, forwarded the mandate of the SeventhCircuit.

(R. 1115—1116)

The Agency responds by stating that the county issue hasalready been sufficiently addressed in this proceeding at theOctober 29, 1986 hearing and IERG has had the opportunity torespond to that evidence in this proceeding. Consequently, theAgency concludes that further hearings on that issue areunnecessary. In addition, the Agency refers to Exhibit 34 whichis a letter, dated April 14, 1987, from Mr. Steve Rothblatt,Chief of the Air and Radiation Branch, of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to Mr. Michael Hayes,Manager of the Division of Air Pollution Control for theAgency. In that letter, Mr. Rothblatt writes,

DuPage and Kane counties clearly cannot beexcluded from the Chicago area EKMAdemonstration, since they are designatednonattainment and are integral parts of theChicago area. While Will and McHenryCounties are no longer classified asnonattainment, omitting these counties fromRACT requirements would require substantialjustification and it is doubtful that such ajustification would be successful. In orderto exclude these counties from the EKMAdemonstration, it is likely that (1)additional controls would be necessary in thenonattaining counties and (2) USEPA wouldhave to be convinced that emissions in thesecounties do not contribute to the emissionsthat lead to the violations of the ozonestandard found in and downwind of the Chicagoarea. In addition, it would be necessary for

* The Board notes that counsel for IERG likely meant to say

“nonattainment”.

80—255

8

the State to prepare, adopt, and submit a newSIP revision which includes a new EKMAanalysis of necessary emission reductions andwhich achieves the necessary emissionreductions in the four county (Cook, DuPasge,Kane, and Lake Counties) area....

Please be aware that unless and until such aSIP revision were approved, the Chicagodemonstration area continues to include Willand McHenry Counties as well as Cook, DuPage,Kane and Lake Counties, and failure to adoptRACT in all six counties could result inimposition of a variety of sanctions.

(R86—l8, Exh. #33, p. 2)

With respect to the county issue, the Board is persuaded by theAgency’s position.

Secondly, IERG asserts that testimony of Mr. Erwin Kauper,presented at the April 24 hearing raises questions regarding “theuse of the EKMA Model as it relates to the necessity for control—— for additional control of hydrocarbon emissions, irrespectiveof the area where those emissions are located.” (R. 1116). Inresponse, the Agency states that the

use of the EKMA model is consistent not onlywith the opinions of the Board for the lasteight years, but also the efforts of theAgency and numerous industrialrepresentatives....If the EKMA model wasdeemed inappropriate, not only would Illinoisrequire a new attainment demonstration and anew SIP but also revised promulgated RACTregulations and proposed RACT regulations.

(Agency Response, p. 3)

The Board agrees with the Agency that it would be inappropriateto question the use of the EKMA model at this point in the RACTregulatory process.

Although IERG’s states intent is “not to delay the timelyprogression of the proposed generic rule,” the Board is at a lossto determine how the opening of a separate docket, to considerissues that are integral to the proposed generic rule, would notfurther impact or delay this proceeding. As stated earlier, theBoard recognizes the importance in proceeding as expeditiously aspossible in this matter. Even if the Board assumes that IERG’sposition is correct, such issues would be fundamental not only tothe proposed generic rule but also to all the RACT proceedings.At this point, the Board sees no reason to investigate, through aseparate docket, the foundation for all the RACT rules. Such an

80—256

9

endeavor would only delay the needed progression of the RACTrulemaking process. Therefore, the Board hereby denies IERG’sMotion to Establish a Separate Docket. The Board notes thatIERG, like any other person, is free to present to the Board aregulatory proposal pursuant to Section 28 of the Act.

VOM Definition

On March 19, the Hearing Officer in this Proceeding and theHearing Officer in R86—37, Definition of Volatile OrganicMaterial, Section 215.104, issued a Joint Order giving guidanceconcerning the Agency’s proposed new definition of VON in R86—37and the resulting impact upon the regulated community if this newdefinition were applied through the proposed generic rule. TheJoint Order stated that it was “most appropriate to address thepotential increased impact under the Generic VOM Rule caused bythe expanded definition of VON in the R86—l8 docket.” The JointOrder further stated:

In order to ensure that the regulatedcommunity has adequate notice of the proposedredefinition of VON in the Generic VONproceeding, the hearing officers request theAgency amend its R86—l8 proposal to show theproposed redefinition of VON contemplated inR86—37.

As a result, when the Agency submitted its AlternativeProposal, a definition for VOM, that was consistent with theAgency’s proposal in R86—37, was included. On July 16, 1987, theBoard adopted the following definition of VON in the ProposedRule, First Notice for R86—37. This definition, which wouldapply to Subpart I, AA, PP, QQ, and RR, states that volatileorganic material is:

any organic material which participates inatmospheric photochemical reactions or ismeasured by the applicable reference methodsspecified under Part 230, Appendix A unlessspecifically exempted from this definition.

Although the version of the Alternative Proposal that the Agencyfiled with the Board contains this definition, the version of theAlternative Proposal that the Board is adopting today for FirstNotice does not contain a definition of VOM. According to theHearing Officers’ Joint Order, the definition of VON to beincluded in the Agency’s proposal in the R86—18 docket was to beincluded for the sole purpose of notifying the public of thepotential impact that the VON definition proposal in R86—37 mighthave upon the proposed generic rule’s scope of applicability.The R86—l8 docket was to receive evidence concerning that impactnot the propriety of the VON definition itself. The latter issuewas to be addressed in the R86—37 docket. It naturally followsthat the record in R86—l8 was not developed for the purpose of

80—257

10

justifying the new VON definition, but rather the record in R86—18 was developed in an attempt to justify the applicability andcontrol requirements of the proposed generic rule. The versionof the Alternative Proposal adopted for First Notice merelyreflects that fact.

In addition, the Board has made some minor changes in thewording of the Alternative Proposal. In particular, the Boarddraws the Agency’s attention to the new wording of Section2l5.221(c)(2). The Board believes it has not changed thesubstance of that provision but merely clarified the wording.The Board requests the Agency’s comments on this change.

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes the following amendments for FirstNotice publication. The Clerk shall cause First Noticepublication of the proposed amendments in the Illinois Register:

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONSUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROLBOARDSUBCHAPTERC: EMISSION STANDARDSAND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 211DEFINITIONS AND GENERALPROVISIONS

SUBPART B: DEFINITIONS

Add the following definitions to Section 211.122:

“Manufacturing Process”: A process emission source or series ofprocess emission sources used to convert raw materials, feedstocks, subassemblies or other components into a product, eitherfor sale or for use as a component in a subsequent manufacturingprocess.

“Miscellaneous Fabricated Product Manufacturing Process”:

A manufacturing process involving one or more of thefollowing applications (including any drying and curing) offormulations and capable of emitting volatile organicmaterial:

Adhesives to fabricate or assemble components orproducts

Asphalt solutions to paper or fiberboardAsphalt to paper or feltCoatings or dye to leatherCoatings to plasticCoatings to rubber or glassDisinfectant material to manufactured itemsPlastic foam scrap or “fluff” from the manufacture

80—258

11

of foam containers and packagingmaterial to form resin pellets

Resin solutions to fiber substratesRubber solutions to moldsViscose solutions for food casings

The storage and handling of formulations associated with theprocess described above.

The use and handling of organic liquids and other substancesfor clean—up operations associated with the process describedabove.

“Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Process”:

A manufacturinq process which compounds one or more of thefollowing and is capable of emitting volatile organicmaterial:

AdhesivesAsphalt solutionsCaulks, sealant~or waterproofing agentsCoatings, other than paint and inkConcrete curing compounds

Friction materials and compoundsResin solutionsRubber solutionsViscose solutions



“Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process”:

A manufacturing process which produces by chemical reaction,one or more of the following organic compounds or mixtures oforganic compounds and which is capable of emitting volatileorganic material:

Chemicals listed in Part 215, Appendix DChlorinated and sulfonated compoundsCosmetic, detergent, soap or surfactant

intermediaries or specialties and productsDisinfectantsFood additivesOil and petroleum product additivesPlasticizersResins or polymersRubber additives

80—259

12

SweetenersVarnishes



“Paint Manufacturing Plant”: a plant that mixes, blends, and/orcompounds enamels, lacquers, sealers, shellacs, stains, varnishesor pigmented surface coatings.

“Reasonably Available Control Technology” (RACT): the lowestemission limitation that an emission source is capable of meetingby the application of control technology that is reasonablyavailable considering technological and economic feasibility.

Subpart AA: PAINT AND INK MANUFACTURING

Section 215.620 Applicability

a) This Subpart shall apply to the following counties:Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Macoupin, Madison, McHenry,Monroe, St. Clair and Will.

b) This Subpart shall apply to all paint and inkmanufacturing plants which:

1) include process emission sources not subject toSubparts B, E, F, N, P, 0, R, S, U, X, Y or Z ofthis Part, and which process emission sources as agroup would emit 100 tons or more per year ofvolatile organic material if no air pollutioncontrol equipment were used, or

2) produce more than 2,000,000 gallons per year ofpaints or ink formulations, which contain less than10 percent, by weight, water, and ink formulationsnot containing as the primary solvents water, McGeeoil, or glycol.

Section 215.621 Exemption for Waterbase Material and HeatsetOffset Ink

The requirements of Sections 215.624, 215.625 and 215.628(a)shall not apply to equipment while it is being used to producepaint or ink formulations which contain 10 percent or more, byweight, water, or inks containing McGee oil and glycol as theprimary solvent.

80—260

13

Section 215.623 Permit Conditions

No person shall violate any condition in a permit when thecondition results in exclusion of the plant or an emission sourcefrom this Subpart.

Section 215.624 Open—top Mills, Tanks, Vats or Vessels

No person shall operate an open—top mill, tank, vat or vessel,with a volume of more than 12 gallons for the production of paintor ink unless:

a) The mill, tank, vat or vessel is equipped with a coverwhich completely covers the mill, tank, vat or vesselopening, except for an opening no larger than necessaryto allow for safe clearance for a mixer shaft. Suchcover shall extend at least 1/2 inch beyond the outer rimof tho opening or be attached to the rim.

b) The cover remains closed, except when production,sampling, maintenance, or inspection procedures requireaccess.

C) The cover is maintained in good condition, such thatwhen in place, it maintains contact with the rim of theopening for at least 90% of the circumference of therim.

Section 215.625 Grinding Mills

a) No person shall operate a grinding mill for theproduction of paint or ink which is not maintained inaccordance with the manufacturers specifications.

h) No person shall operate a grinding mill fabricated ormodified after (effective date of proposal)which is not equipped with fully enclosed screens.

c) The manufacturer’s specifications shall be kept on fileat the plant by the owner or operator of the grindingmill and be made available upon reasonable request.

Section 215.628 Leaks

The owner or operator of a paint or ink manufacturing plantshall, for the purpose of detecting leaks, conduct an equipmentmonitoring program consistent with the following:

a) Each pump shall be checked by visual inspection eachcalendar week for indications of leaks, that is, liquidsdripping from the pump seal. If there are indicationsof liquids dripping from the pump seal, the pump shallbe repaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15calendar days after the leak is detected.

80—261

14

b) Any pump, valve, pressure relief valve, samplingconnection, open—ended valve, and flange or connectorcontaining a fluid which is at least 10 percent byweight volatile organic material which appears to beleaking on the basis of sight, smell, or sound shall berepaired as soon as practicable, but no later than 15calendar days after the leak is detected.

c) A readily visible identification shall be attached toleaking equipment. The identification may be removedupon repair, that is, when the equipment is adjusted orotherwise altered to allow operation without leaking.

d) When a leak is detected, the owner or operator shallrecord the date of detection and repair and the recordshall be retained at the plant in a readily accessiblelocation for at least 2 years from the date of eachdetection or each repair attempt.

Section 215.630 Clean Up

a) No person shall clean paint or ink manufacturingequipment with organic solvent unless the equipmentbeing cleaned is completely covered or enclosed exceptfor an opening no larger than necessary to allow safeclearance, considering the method and materials beingused.

b) No person shall store organic wash solvent in other thanclosed containers, unless closed containers aredemonstrated to be a safety hazard, or dispose oforganic wash solvent in a manner such that more than 20percent by weight is allowed to evaporate into theatmosphere.

Section 215.636 Compliance Date

Owners and operators of emission sources subject to this Subpart

shall comply with its requirements by December 31, 1987.

SUBPART PP: MISCELLANEOUSFABRICATED PRODUCT

MANUFACTURINGPROCESSES


a) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply to thefollowing counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Macoupin,Madison, McHenry, Monroe, St. Clair and Will.

b) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply, except asprovided in Subsection (e) below, to miscellaneousfabricated product manufacturing processes at a plant,which plant includes process emission sources not

80—262

15

subject to Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X, Y, orZ of this Part, and which process emission sources as agroup would emit 100 tons or more per year of volatileorganic material if no air pollution control equipmentwere used.

c) If a plant ceases to fulfill the criteria of Subsection(b), the requirements of this Subpart shall continue toapply to a miscellaneous fabricated productsmanufacturing process emission source which was subjectto an met the control requirements of Section 215.926.

d) No limits under this Subpart shall apply to:

1) Emission sources with emissions of volatile organicmaterial to the atmosphere less than or equal to1.0 ton per year if the total emissions from suchsources not complying with Section 215.926 does notexceed 5.0 tons per year, and

2) Emissi.on sources whose emissions of volatileorganic material are subject to limits in Part 230or Part 231; or the Lowest Achievable EmissionRate, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 203; orBest Available Control Technology, pursuant to 40CRF 52.21 or Section 9.4 of the Act.

e) Notwithstanding Subsection (b) above, the provisions ofthis Subpart do not apply to emission sources which areregulated under Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X,Y, or Z of this Part, including emission sources whichwould be subject to limits under these Subparts if thesources had sufficient size, throughput or emissions,and emission sources which meet specific exemptionscontained in these Subparts.



Section 215.926 Control Requirements

a) Every owner or operator of an emission source ofvolatile organic material shall operate in compliancewith RACT, which for emission sources subject to thisSubpart shall be:

1) Emission capture and control techniques whichachieve an overall reduction in uncontrolledvolatile organic material emissions of at least81%; or

80—263

16

2) For coating lines, volatile organic materialemissions not to exceed 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) ofcoating materials as applied, excluding water andany compounds which are specifically exempted fromthe definition of volatile organic material, on adaily basis. Owners and operators complying withthis Subsection 2l5.926(a)(2) are not required tocomply with Section 215.301; or

3) An adjusted RACT emissions limitation obtainedpursuant to Subpart I.

b) Owners and operators of emission sources subject to thisSubpart shall comply with its requirements by December31, 1987.

Subpart QQ: MISCELLANEOUSFORMULATIONMANUFACTURINGPROCESSES


a) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply to thefollowing counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Macoupin,McHenry, Monroe, St. Clair and Will.

b) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply, except asprovided in Subsection (e) below, to miscellaneousformulation manufacturing processes at a plant whichplant includes process emission sources not subject toSubparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X, Y or Z of thisPart, and which process emission sources as a groupwould emit 100 tons or more per year of volatile organicmaterial if no air pollution control equipment wereused.

c) If a plant ceases to fulfill the criteria of Subsection(b), the requirements of this Subpart shall continue toapply to a miscellaneous formulation manufacturingprocess emission source which was subject to and met thecontrol requirements of Section 215.946.


1) Emission sources with emissions of volatile organicmaterial to the atmosphere less than or equal to1.0 ton per year if the total emissions from suchsources not complying with Section 215.946 does notexceed 5.0 tons per year, and

2) Emission sources whose emissions of volatileorganic material are subject to limits in Part 230or Part 231; or the Lowest Achievable EmissionRate, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 203; orBest Available Control Technology, pursuant to 40CFR 52.21 or Section 9.4 of the Act.

80—264

17

e) Notwithstanding Subsection (b) above, the provisions ofthis Subpart do not apply to emission sources which areregulated under Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X, Yor Z of this Part, including emission sources whichwould be subject to limits under these Subparts if thesources had sufficient size, throughput or emissions,and emission sources which meet specific exemptionscontained in these Subparts.




a) Every owner or operator of an emission source ofvolatile organic material shall operate in compliancewith RACT, which for emission sources subject to thisSubpart shall be:




Subpart RR: MISCELLANEOUSORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURINGPROCESSES


a) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply to thefollowing counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Macoupin,Madison, Mdflenry, Monroe, St. Clair and Will.

b) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply, except asprovided in Subsection (e) below, to miscellaneousorganic chemical manufacturing processes at a plantwhich processes include emission sources not subject toSubparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X, Y or Z of thisPart, and which processes as a group woule emit 100 tonsor more per year of volatile organic material if no airpollution control equipment were used.

C) If a plant ceases to fulfill the criteria of Subsection

80—265

18

(b), the requirements of this Subpart shall continue toapply to a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturingprocess emission source which was subject to and met thecontrol requirements of Section 215.966.


1) Emission sources with emissions of volatile organicmaterial to the atmosphere less than or equal to1.0 ton per year if the total emissions from suchsources not complying with Sectin 215.966 does notexceed 5.0 tons per year, and

2) Emission sources whose emissions of volatileorganic material are subject to limits in Part 230or Part 231; or the Lowest Achievable EmissionRate, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 203; orBest Available Control Technology, pursuant to 40CFR 52.21 or Section 9.4 of the Act.

e) Notwithstanding Subsection (h) above, the provisions ofthis Subpart do not apply to emission sources which areregulated under Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, X, Yor Z of this Part, including emission sources whichwould be subject to limits under these Subparts if thesources had sufficient size, throughput or emissions,and emission sources which meet specific exemptionscontained in these Subparts.




a) Every owner or operator of an emission source ofvolatile organic material shall operate in compliancewith PACT, which for emission sources subject to thisSubpart shall be:




80—266

19

SUBPART I: ADJUSTED RACT EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS


Owners and operators of emission sources subject to Subparts PP,QQ, or RR may petition the Illinois Pollution Control Board foran Adjusted PACT Emissions Limitation for such emissionsources. Owners and operators of emissions sources which are inexistence on (the effective date of these Subparts)shall submit to the Illinois Pollution Control Board a Notice ofIntent to Petition for an Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitationby (the effective date plus 60 days). Petitions for anAdjusted RACT Emissions Limitation shall be filed by(the effective date plus 120 days) or at the time a constructionpermit is applied for from the Agency for the emission source, orat the time an emission source meets the applicability criteriaset forth in such Subparts.

Section 215.221 Petition

A petition for an Adjusted RACT Emission Limitation shallcontain:

a) A specific proposal of, and support for, an AdjustedRACT Emissions Limitation which would apply to theemission source that is the subject of the petition aswell as a showing that the application of the applicablelimti.s(s) of Section 2l5.926(a)(l) and (2),2l5.946(a)(l) or 215.966(a)(1) would be technicallyinfeasible and/or economically unreasonable for thatemission source.

b) Information on the technical feasibility of reducingemissions of volatile organic material from the emissionsource including, but not limited to:

1) A complete description of the operations of theemission source.

2) A discussion of all available compliance strategiesfor achieving the emissions reduction prescribed bythe applicable section and the technicalfeasibility of each compliance strategy.

3) Comparisons of the nature and quantity ofuncontrolled emissions to:

A) Emissions reductions which would be achieved

pursuant to the applicable Section for eachcompliance strategy listed in Section2l5.221(b)(2); and

B) Emissions reduction which would be achievedpursuant to the proposed Adjusted RACT

80—267

20

Emissions Limitation.

4) The basis for determining that the proposed methodof emissions reduction is RACT for the thatemission source and all information supporting thatdetermination.

c) Information on the economic reasonableness of reducingemissions of volatile organic material from the emissionsource including, but not limited to:

1) A comparison of the relative costs of achieving theemissions reduction pursuant to Section2l5.926(a)(l) and (2), 2l5.946(a)(l) or2l5.966(a)(l) and pursuant to the proposed AdjustedRACT Emissions Limitation including for eachcompliance strategy:

A) Capital costs;

B) Operating costs;

C) Any economic benefits, such as materialrecovery; and

D) Other costs.

2) An evaluation of the cost effectiveness in terms ofannualized net cost per ton of volatile organicmaterial reduction for each compliance strategy.Volatile organic material reduction is the amountof uncontrolled volatile organic material emissionsless the amount of volatile organic materialemissions after controls.

3) An evaluation of the effects of the cost ofachieving emissions reduction in relation to:

A) The annualized capital and operating budgetsof the emission source over the most recentfive—year period; and

B) The cost of the product or services providedby the emission source.

4) The basis for determining that the proposed methodof emissions reduction is PACT for the emissionSource and all information supporting thatdetermination.

Section 215.223 Public Hearing

In a public hearing before the Board held pursuant to therequirements of Section 28.1 of the Act, the petitioner for an

80—268

21

Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation shall prove:

a) That the emissions limitation prescribed pursuant toSection 2l5.926(a)(1) and (2), 2l5.946(a)(l) or215.966(a)(l) does not constitute PACT for the specificemission source; and

b) That compliance with the proposed Adjusted RACTEmissions Limitation:

I) Is RACT for that emission source based on theinformation provided in the petition and at thehearing addressing subjects described in Sections215.221 and

2) Will not cause or contribute to an increase inemissions so as to prevent or interfere with theattainment of the National Ambient Air QualityStandards for ozone and carbon monoxide or with anyportion of the Illinois State Implementation Plan.

Section 215.224 Board Action

If an owner or operator of an emission source complies with therequirements of Sections 215.221 and 215.223 the Board mayestablish an Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation. Such AdjustedRACT Emissions Limitation:

a) Shall substitute for that limitation otherwiseprescribed by Section 2l5.926(a)(l) and (2),2l5.946(a)(l) or 215.966(a)(1) and

b) Shall require compliance no later than December 31,1987, or prior to the operation of a new emissionsource.

Section 215.227 Agency Petition

The Agency may petition the Board for an Adjusted RACT EmissionLimitation for an emission source subject to this Subpart at anytime prior to December 31, 1987. The provisions of Sections215.221, 215.223, and 215.224 shall apply to such petitions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution ControlBoard, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order wasadopted on the ~ day of ~ , 1987, by a voteof 6—c:) .

Dorothy M. Gum?; clerkIllinois Pollution Control Board

80—269

Documents

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: … · Chemical (Dow) concerning the proposed rule’s applicability to Dow. A hearing was set for June 18. Subsequently, IERG,