ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 4,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS TO 35
ILL. ADM. CODE
)
R86—10
211
& 215 ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION
STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR
SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
MANUFACTURING PLANTS.
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board
upon
a February 26, 1986,
proposal for the adoption of amendments to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 211
and 215 filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
The proposal was accepted and authorized
for hearing
by Order
of February 26,
1986.
On April
23,
1987, the Agency
submitted an amended proposal.
Hearing was held on June
9,
1987,
in Waukegan.
The Agency filed a second amended proposal on July
27, 1987,
and a third amended proposal on August 24,
1987.
The
second hearing was held on
August 25, 1987 in Chicago.
On
September
21,
1987,
the Agency filed
the fourth amended proposal,
which was presented at the
third hearing, held
September
22,
1987.
On October
28,
1987,
the Agency filed the fifth amended
proposal,
which was presented at the fourth hearing held October
30,
1987.
On August
6,
1987,
the Board adopted an Order sending
the
Agency’s second amended proposal
to first notice publication
in
the Illinois Register.
As
a result
of impending deadlines
imposed by the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C.
7401),
the Board took no
position on the merits of the Agency proposal at that time,
but
rather directed the proposal
to first notice publication
in an
attempt to expedite the process
of promulgating
final regulations
and
to comply with the federal deadlines.
First notice was
published
at 11
Ill.
Reg.
14592
(Part
211)
and 14617
(Part
215)
on September
4,
1987.
On September
24,
1987,
the Secretary
of
State’s Administrative Code Division filed comments on the
proposal.
Those changes have been adopted
at second notice.
Other comments have been filed
by the Agency, Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott),
the North Shore Sanitary District (~SSD),and
the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
1
The Board
notes that USEPA’s comments were filed on December
14,
1987,
after
the scheduled comment period had expired.
The
comments were admitted
into the record pursuant to Hearing
(continued)
86—193
—2—
On November
13,
1987,
the Department of Energy and flatural
Resources
(DENR)
filed a negative declaration stating
its
determination that the preparation of
a formal economic impact
study is not necessary
in this proceeding.
The negative
declaration was
based on DENR’s finding
that
“the cost of making
a formal study
is economically unreasonable
in relation
to the
value
of the study to the Board
in determining the adverse
economic impact of the regulation.”
Also filed on November
13,
1987 was notification of
the concurrence of the Economic and
Technical Advisory Committee
(ETAC)
in DENR’s negative
declaration.
Background
The overriding
basis of the Agency’s proposal
is to correct
deficiencies
in the Illinois State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
which have been
identified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA).
Section 172 of the Clean Air Act
requires the state to
impose the use of
reasonably available
control technology
(RACT)
on existing sources
in non—attainment
areas.
On May 19,
1978, USEPA gave notice that the SIP must
include, at least
for major urban areas, enforceable regulations
reflecting
the application of RACT
to those stationary sources
for which USEPA has published control techniques guidelines
(CTGS)
since 1978.
In December,
1978,
a CTG was published
entitled “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture
of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products.”
On April
3,
1980,
the Agency proposed
in R80—5 regulations
for the control of volatile organic materials from the
manufacture of
synthesized pharmaceuticals, together with other
regulations generally known as
the RACT
II
categories.
On
Deceimber
30,
1982,
the Board adopted the proposed rules,
but
without provisions
for
the control of emissions
from the
manufacture of synthetic pharmaceuticals.
On July
11,
1985,
USEPA proposed,
in part,
to disapprove
Illinois’
Part D
stationary source control strategy for failure
to meet
the
RACT
II control
requirements,
stating
its belief that Illinois:
“failed
to
adequately
justify
exempting
this
source
category
from
the
requirement
of
RACT.
Further,
the State’s
failure
to
adopt
regulations
covering
the
synthetic
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
industry,
leaves
these
sources
totally
unregulated.
USEPA
believes
that
cost
can
be
considered
in
determining whether
or not a regulation should
be
adopted.
The State
must,
however,
better
Officer Order granting
the Agency’s Motion for Leave
to
File
Instanter also
filed December
14,
1987.
86—194
—3—
support
its
decision
not
to
adopt
these
regulations
due
to
the
unreasonably
high
costs.
For
example,
Illinois
could
compare
the
control
costs
for
this
industry
in
other
States
to
costs
for
this
industry
in
Illinois.
USEPA’s analyses indicate that RACT
exists
for
the
synthetic
pharmaceutical
manufacturing industry.”
(50
Fed.
Reg.
28224—
28226, July 11,
1985)
To remedy the deficiencies noted
in USEPA’s proposed
disapproval,
the Agency filed
its proposal,
initiating
this
proceeding,
on February 26,
1986.
the Board notes that this
rulemaking proceeding has been highly contested since
the outset,
due
in part
to the fact that the propos~drules apply to only one
business entity
——
Abbott Laboratories.
Abbott has opposed the
Agency’s proposal throughout, and has submitted
a proposal of
its
own, which is addressed below.
As
a result, gathering
information
sufficient to enable
the Board
to make
a reasoned
decision consistent with USEPA’s proposed disapproval has proven
a difficult
task.
However, after
four hearings and five
amendments refining
the proposal
to the complexities of Abbott’s
operations,
the Board believes that there
is sufficient evidence
to support the Agency’s position that its most recent proposal
constitutes RACT for Abbott.
As previously stated,
the Board ordered
the Agency’s second
amended proposal to first notice.
The final version of the
Agency’s proposal
is comprised of the fifth amended proposal with
minor amendments suggested by the Agency
in its final comments of
December
7,
1987.
The Board notes that this
final proposal could
be sent
to second
first notice for publication.
However,
the
Board does not believe that the public interest would be best
served
in this manner.
First,
the first notice published in
August,
1987, gave ample notice of the proposal of regulations
for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The subsequent Agency
proposals constituted mere refinements
to the proposal so as
to
better conform to Abbott’s actual operations.
Second, as will
be
2
Abbott’s manufacturing operations include two plants
located
approximately five miles apart
in Lake County, Illinois.
The
North Chicago facility
is
a large complex devoted
to fermentation
facilities,
synthetic pharmaceutical production,
laboratory and
pilot plant research and development,
and administrative
offices.
The Abbott Park facility, located
in an unincorporated
area of Lake County,
houses administrative offices,
laboratory
research and development, diagnostic kit assembly and
pharmaceutical product preparation from bulk products
manufactured at North Chicago or elsewhere.
86—195
—4—
discussed below,
Abbott
is the only source affected by the
proposed rules, and
it has actively participated throughout the
proceeding.
Thus, Abbott has had actual notice of each change
in
the proposal.
~pplicability
At hearing,
the Agency presented data that included the list
of pharmaceutical manufacturers
(Ex.
10, Table
3)3
that would
be
potentially affected by the Agency’s proposal.
Proposed Section
215.480 would render the regulations applicable
to sources
emitting more than 6.8 kilograms per day
(kg/day)
(15
lbs/day)
of
volatile organic material and more than 2268 kg/year (2.5
tons/year),
or,
if less than 2.5 tons/year,
to any single source
exceeding 45.4 kg/day (100 lbs/day).
Applying the 15
lbs/day,
2.5 ton/year standard
to the list of manufacturers potentially
affected,
the Agency concluded that only Abbott’s facilities
would
be affected by the proposed rule
(R.
86).
Although the
fifth amended proposal amends the applicability criteria
in
certain respects,
the Agency has not indicated that other
facilities
are thereby brought within the purview of
the
regulation.
The Board believes that the regulations remain
applicable only to Abbott.
Fifth Amended Proposal
From the outset,
the Agency and Abbott have held and
expressed widely divergent estimates of
not only the actual,
installed costs
of control equipment but also,
and more
fundamentally,
the maximum reasonable cost per
ton of volatile
organic material controlled.
The CTG notes the complexities
associated with the regulation of pharmaceutical manufacture:
“Each
plant
is
unique,
differing
from
other
plants
in
size,
types
of
products
manufactured,
amounts
and
types
of VOC
used,
and
air
pollution
control
problems
encountered.
The
dissimilarities
make
it
impossible
to
define
typical
emission
levels
or
emission
factors
for
an
average
plant.
This
in
turn
prevents
identifying
in
this
document which sources definitely need to be
Citations
to the
record
in this action are made as
follows:
1)
references
to the Board hearing transcripts are
to
‘SR.
_______“;
2)
references
to exhibits reieived by the Board are
to
Ex.
_______“;
3)
references
to public comments are to
,tP.C.
,,
86—196
—5—
controlled
and
how
much
overall
emission
reduction can be effected.”
(Ex.
6,
p.
2—2).
Furthermore,
“Because the amount
and type of emissions vary
widely
from
plant
to
plant,
each
control
application
will
be
unique.
Therefore,
in
some
situations
control
system
construction
materials,
operating
conditions,
installation
expenses,
etc.
will
be
different
form
those
assumed
in
calculating
costs
for
this
chapter.
In
instances
where
regulatory
decisions
hinge
on
the
cost
of
control,
it
would
be
proper
to
consider
additional
information
that
may
more
accurately
reflect
control costs
for the plant
in question.”
(Ex.
6,
p.
5—1).
The Agency secured the assistance of Mr. Thomas Ponder4 in
the development of
the proposed regulations.
Mr.
Ponder prepared
a report
(Ex. 24)
that was aimed
at determining RACT for the
Abbott facilities and testified
(Ex.
23)
that of
the over 100
sources
of volatile organic material
(VOM)
emissions at Abbott’s
facilities,
only
12 sources
(two in the fermentation facility at
North Chicago and ten
at the packaging facility at Abbott Park)
were cost—effective
to control.
His report evaluated
incinerators (both thermal and catalytic), condensation,
refrigerated condensors,
scrubbers and carbon absorbers and
concluded that the 12 sources, emitting either acetone or
ethanol, would have the most cost—effective controls
if they
employed scrubbers.
The control cost of other sources in Abbott’s facilities
(Buildings
200 and 800) which emitted less than 2.5 T/yr were
also evaluated
in the PEI report.
However, Mr.
Ponder
recommended
that such sources were infeasible to control since
the cost effectiveness exceeds
$5,000 per ton of VOM
controlled.
This approach
is consistent with the control
technique guideline
(CTG) document
(Ex.
6) which states
that the
“decision
to
require
control
of
specific
exhaust
streams
will
be
determined
based
on
Mr. Ponder, employed by USEPA
as
a consultant,
is Vice
President and Western Regional Manager
of PEI Associates,
Inc.
(PEI).
He
is
a certified cost engineer and has experience
in
volatile organic material control and cost effectiveness.
86—197
—6—
local
air
quality,
the mass
emission
rate
of
volatile
organics,
and
the
cost
to
the
operator
to control the streams.”
The CTG does state
that cost—effectiveness was not measured for
this industry because annual emissions cannot be estimated
in a
manner
“consistent with the costing techniques.”
This
is due
to
the large variations
in emissions from pharmaceutical
manufacturing plants.
At the September
22,
1987 hearing,
Abbott presented
testimony that the cost—effectiveness
of control was much greater
than $5,000 per ton of VOM controlled.
Abbott hired
ETA,
Inc.
(ETA)
to evaluate the implications of the Agency’s proposed
regulations.
The ETA report
(Ex.
39) lists
the total annual
emissions from Abbott’s two plants at 131.4 T/yr with only 71.02
P/yr being affected by the proposed rule.
This report identified
19 sources,
7 more than the PEI
report.
This comparison,
presented in Table
2.3,
Ex.
39,
shows that different emissions
were used
for
the individual sources.
A more significant
difference between the reports
is that the ETA report only
evaluated carbon adsorption and incineration
for all sources at
Abbott Park.
For the emissions
at the North Chicago Plant,
incinerators and refrigerated condensors were considered, except
for one source
(PC 815)
for which
a scrubber was evaluated.
The
PEI report rules
out incineration, carbon adsorption, and
refrigerated condensors
as being too expensive compared
to
scrubbers and
identified packed bed scrubbers
as the control
method
to be used
at Abbott’s facilities.
Abbott has said that
scrubbers cannot
be used at Abbott Park because process water
is
not readily available
and because of limitations of the municipal
wastewater treatment system
(R.
547—548; 454—455; 486—489).
The
ETA
report presented the cost—effectiveness
for control of the
19
sources,
identified by them, which ranges
from $3,723/ton
(for
a
scrubber on the PC 815 source)
to $37,t77/ton
(for
a refrigerated
condensor on the
PC 802 source).
The ~‘st of the sources,
except
the two tray dryers,
are fitted with incinerators.
The discrepancies
in the two reports are
(1) generally
higher emissions from the sources
as given
to PEI by Abbott than
the emissions used by Abbott
(i.e.,
ETA),
(2)
use of different
types of controls and failure of
ETA to evaluate scrubbers,
and
(3)
failure
of PEI
to take into account the correct costs
of
water
and wastewater treatment.
The emissions discrepancy was explained
at the September
22,
1987 hearing
(R.
582—608).
PEI was given the 1986 production
forecast while ETA was provided the 1987 production forecast.
Because of the wide variations
in VOM emissions from day to day,
cost—effectiveness numbers can change dramatically.
Abbott has
not provided
the Board with the necessary historical data or
the
range of emissions that might be expected.
86—198
—7—
Abbott has not provided cost data on installation of
scrubbers, which makes
it very difficult to compare with the
costs of control
submitted by PEI.
Abbott has summarily ruled
out scrubbers except
for one
source
(PC
815).
Mr. Robertson,
of
Abbott Laboratories, provided operating and maintenance unit
costs at Abbott
(R.
488-489)
from which
the water and wastewater
treatment costs are given
below:
Cost for
Cost For
Item
North Chicago
Abbott Park
Lake Water
$0.l42/l000 gal
City Water
$1.00 /1000 gal
$1.05/bOO gal
Well Water
$0.40/bOO gal
Wastewater Treatment
a) Abbott plant
1.
Flow
$0.30/bOO gal
2.
BOD
$0.350/lb
b) Gurnee POTW
1.
Flow
$0.30/bOO gal
2.
BOD
$0.31/
lb
3.
TSS
$0.28/
lb
c)
Clavey Road POTW
1.
Flow
$0.30/bOO gal
2.
BOD
$0.3l/
lb
3.
TSS
$0.29/
lb
Based
on
interviews on August
26,
1987 and October
12,
1987
conducted by Mr.
Ponder, of PEI, with Ms. Penny Bouchard,
of the
North Shore Sanitary District
(NSSD), Mr. Ponder stated that the
wastewater treatment rates are $0.34 per thousand gallons of
flow;
$0.34/lb of BOD;
and $0.31/lb of suspended solids, which
would be applicable
to Abbott discharged wastewater
released
to
either
the Gurnee or Waukegan plants which are closest
to Abbott
Laboratories (see Attachment
3,
Ex.
59).
At the final hearing
on
October
30,
1987,
Mr.
Ponder used the new emissions data that
Abbott provided during
the September 22, 1987 hearing and the
NSSD wastewater treatment costs to come up with up—dated costs of
control
at Abbott’s facilities
(Ex.
59).
The testimony of Mr.
Ponder addressed
the cost of acquiring well water where city
water
is not available.
The recalculated cost estimates
for
emission control on 13 sources at the two Abbott facilities
is
found
in Exhibit
59, Attachment
1,
Table
1.
86—199
—8—
The change
in the number
of sources
to be controlled
is
the
result of
the latest
(1987 projection)
emissions estimates
provided by Abbott and the estimates of water and wastewater
treatment costs.
The control method with the lowest cost per
ton
of VOM controlled
is also shown on the
table
in the above
referenced Exhibit
59.
Using
a criterion of $5,000 per ton,
the
only sources Mr. Ponder recommended
for controb at Abbott’s
facilities
which are cost—effective
(C.E.)
are:
a)
one
(1)
source, PC 842
at
N.
Chicago
—
C.E. $2,060/ton
with incinerator
b)
two
(2)
tray driers
at
N.
Chicago
—
Unit C.E. $2,226/ton
with wet scrubber
c)
eight
(8)
tunnel driers
at Abbott Park
—
C.E. $4,450
with wet scrubber
d)
two
(2)
accelacotas
at Abbott Park
—
C.E. $4,250/ton
with wet scrubber.
With
regard
to
the water supply inadequacy problems cited
by
Abbott,
Mr. Ponder states
in Ex.
59 the following:
“Information supplied by Abbott indicates
that
current
water
supply
from
the
Niagara
formation
(Sic)
iS
inadequate,
and
there
is
currently
not
enough
city
water
to
supply
these
scrubbers
to
control
the tunnel
driers
and
accelacotas
at Abbott
Park
.
However the
Well
Company
report
clearly
states
that
we
could
get
more
water
by
digging
a
deeper
well.
We evaluated
the cost
of
that well and
believe
we
could
supply
wa~er
for
the
scrubbers at 90 cents per gallon
based on new
wells
going
over
1,000
feet deep.
New water
supplies,
therefore,
are
not
a
problem
at
Abbott.”
Abbott bebieves that PEI’s estimated well cost of $130,000,
resulting
in $0.90 per 1000 gallons
is unrealistically low and
attempts
to establish
in Fig.
2.2,
P.C.
3 that the well cost
is
$2.38/bOO gallons.
The Board believes that Abbott’s calculation
of this figure
is erroneous since
it divides
the total annual
cost of four operating wells by the volume of water
(in 1000
gallons) derived from only one well.
The Board believes that Mr. Ponder meant
“90 cents per 1000
gallons.”
86—200
—9—
Penny Bouchard, NSSD, submitted comments regarding the
actual costs
of discharging
to NSSD’s plants
(P.C.
5).
Ms.
Bouchard states that various ordinances of the NSSD require that
total costs are related to the specific user and must include
(1)
Permit
fees,
(2) Monitoring Costs,
(3)
User Charge fees and
(4)
Capital costs.
PEI’s estimate only included the User Charge
fees,
and even
this figure may have been underestimated,
according
to Ms. Bouchard, since billing
is based on the COD:BOD
ratio
of the wastewater.
Abbott’s wastewater has typically had
a
high COD:BOD ratio and has been charged more that $0.34/lb BOD,
the number that
is used by PEI
in its calculations.
This information regarding the considerable costs of
wastewater discharges from an industrial source,
such
as Abbott,
to NSSD plants was also transmitted to J.E. Spessard,
PEI,
Inc.
who
in
a November
20,
1987 memorandum,
a copy of which was sent
to Mr.
Ponder,
stated
the following:
“I
have
recalculated
emission
control
costs
for Abbott’s
two Accelacotas and
eight
tunnel
driers
....
Revised
annual
control costs are
$40,750
for
the Accelacotas
($6,400 per ton of
VOC
controlled)
and
$27,250
for
the
tunnel
driers
($7,600
per
ton
ton
of
VOC
controlled)
.“
Spessard’s memorandum was attached
to
a cover better
from
Mr.
Ponder,
PEI,
to the Agency which states that the cost
of
controlling the emissions of VOM from the Accebacotas and the
tunnel driers would exceed $5,000/ton.
(Attachment
4, P.C.
4).
Based
on this new information, the Agency submitted comments on
December
7,
1987
(P.C.
4)
which request the Board
to amend
the
Agency’s fifth amended proposal which would require Abbott
to
control
a total of only three
(3)
sources, namely,
PC 842 and
two
tray driers,
located
at the North Chicago plant.
The Board
accepts the Agency’s amendments:
the second notice Order
includes the suggested revisions.
Final Agency Proposal
As the final version of the proposed regulations control
only the three above—named sources, this Opinion will
focus
its
evaluation of
costs on only those
three sources.
The costs of
controlling these three sources will
be evaluated by comparing
the cost of control
as estimated by PEI for the Agency and ETA
for Abbott.
The comparison
is illustrated by the following
table:
86—201
—10—
VOM
(T/yr)
Cost
($)
Total
Calculated
Source
Dnitted
Controlled
Capital
Annual
per
ton
by
Comments
PC 842
2.09# 1.88
10,800*
3,864
2,060
PEI
Incinerator
2.00 1.88
51,300*
15,871
8,442
ETA
Incinerator
Tray Driers:
No.
1
3.38
3.04
7,000
6,903
2,297
PEI
Scrubber
No.
2
3.38
3.04
7,000
6,903
2,297
PEI
Scrubber
Nos.
1&2 7.76
6.08
7,000
12,010
1,975
PEI
One
scrubber
for
both
driers
No.
1
3.38
3.04
25,600
12,143
3,992
ETA
Scrubber
No.
2
3.38
3.04
25,600
12,143
3,992
ETA
Scrubber
#Emissions are less than 2.5 T/yr, but exceed 100 lb/day
*Costs are based on a flow rate of 700 acfm
PC 842
For reactor PC 842, Mr. Ponder recommended and the Agency
proposed control using a small
incinerator.
PEI estimated an
installed capital cost of $10,800.
Abbott estimated an instabled
capital cost of $51,300.
The Agency contends that ETA’s
estimated costs
for the incinerator
to control emissions from PC
842 are “outdated and do not reflect true market conditions.
“ETA’s estimates are based on
ten—year old costs data for barge,
custom—designed incinerators.
“Presently, many companies offer
smaller,
factory—assembled incinerators at much bower prices.”
(P.C.
4).
The Agency bases
its statement on a review of ETA’S
cost estimating methodology
for thermal incineration by Spessard
of PEI (Attachment
2,
P.C.
4), which gives convincing arguments
for accepting PEI’s cost estimates as being more realistic based
on equipment and availability.
ETA also presented some vendor
quotes,
the lowest incinerator being $19,000 for
a flow of bOO
acfm (received by the Board November
b3,
1987).
Mr.
Ponder,
PEI,
stated
in testimony that “We
had different vendor quotes
than
they
ETA
have.
I am not sure exactly why...
They didn’t use
the same vendors.”
(R.
902).
PEI also submitted a revised
vendor survey
(received by the Board November
30,
1987).
In
PEI’s survey, vendors were asked for
the cost of
an incinerator
at
a flow rate of 300 cfm.
The lowest cost was from the National
Incinerator Company for $5,000.
Based
on all the information provided, the Board
finds
that
the costs of installation used by ETA appear rather high.
However, the unit cost of
the incinerator used by PEI might be
86—202
—11-
10w since
they extrapolated from costs obtained for a
300 acfm
incinerator
to one operating
at a 700 acfm flow rate.
Because
packaged, skid—mounted incineration units are available, the
actual costs
are unlikely
to be as high as projected by ETA.
The
cost per
ton is also
a function of
the actual amounts of VOM
controlled.
Since these emissions are small and only one
incinerator
is involved, the Board finds that
the cost predicted
to
be incurred by Abbott in installing an incinerator
to control
PC 842 wibb not be unreasonably high.
Tray Driers
Mr.
Ponder also recommended control by wet scrubber on two
tray driers at the North Chicago facility.
The Agency states
that although Mr. Ponder believes that one scrubber could serve
both tray driers
(at
a cost
of $1,975 per ton), he evaluated the
installation costs of separate scrubbers for the two driers
(P.C.
4,
p.
6).
The total capital cost of
a scrubber
for each tray
drier
is $7,000, which results
in a cost
of $2,297, per ton of
VOM controlled, well under
$3,000 per ton (P.C.
4,
p.
6).
Abbott,
however, estimated that the total capital cost of
a
scrubber for each tray drier
is $25,600, which translates into
a
cost
of $3,992 per ton of VOM controlled.
Based
on the
information in the record, the Board believes that Abbott’s
estimates are high for the fairly
small scrubber required.
The
Board believes that emissions from
the tray driers can be
controlled
at
a cost
of less than $3,000 per
ton which, without
implying that $3,000
is necessarily the cut—off
for RACT,
the
Board believes
is reasonable.
Abbott estimated the total VOM emissions from its
pharmaceutical operations,
in the absence of control, at 4,627.3
T/yr
and claimed that
it
is controlling
97.2
with existing
controls
(Ex. 52).
These existing controls at Abbott’s plants
are process—rebated or required because of Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulations
(R.
685).
Abbott
is able
to achieve
a higher
level of control because
it uses cooler
(Lake
Michigan) condenser water which results
in lower VOM emissions.
The Board notes that the Agency’s final proposal adopted at
second notice
is still based on the CTG for this category with
some modifications that take into account Abbott’s operation.
Thus the rube as adopted
is expected to result
in less than
8
T/yr of VOM reductions.
However,
this reduction
is in addition
to the 97.2
(i.e.
4497.7 T/yr) VOM reduction already achieved
with existing (CTG recommended) controls.
Thus all of Abbott’s
controllable sources are brought under this proposed rule for
controlling
synthesized pharmaceutical manufacturing plant VOM
emissions.
This fulfills the state’s requirement,
under Section
172 of the Clean
Air Act,
to adopt enforceable RACT regulations.
86—203
—12—
Abbott Laboratories Proposal
At hearing on October 30,
1987, Abbott submitted an
alternative proposal for the pharmaceutical industry.
Abbott
states that its proposal “embodies Abbott’s existing bevel of
control
and would require certain controls on CTG and non—CTG
sources based
on a cost effectiveness of $3,000 per ton.”
Abbott
believes that its proposal
is approvabbe because
it
is “based on
a reasonable cost effectiveness value.”
The Agency objects
to Abbott’s proposal.
The Agency
believes that Sections 215.480,
215.481, 215.482, and
215.486
contain emission level cut—offs that are not justifiable as RACT
and, therefore,
not approvable by USEPA.
Further, the Agency
states that in Section 215.480
and 215.486 of Abbott’s proposal
laboratory hoods have been deleted as
a source category, and
in
Section 215.481 centrifuges have been totally exempted by
exclusion.
The Agency’s position on such emissions
is that,
“Although
no
lab
hoods
or
centrifuges
at
Abbott’s facilities presently meet the 2.5 ton
per
year
threshold,
the Agency believes
these
sources would become cost effective
to control
should
emissions
increase
beyond
2.5
tpy
(R.
pp.
207—208).
Lab
hoods
and centrifuges
are
thus
best
treated
as
the Agency
is
treating
all
other
sources:
by
designating
an
exemption
emission
level
beyond
which
the
source
becomes
cost
effective
to
control.”
(P.C.
4,
p.
8).
The Agency also objects
to Section 215.487 of Abbott’s
proposal, which would allow Abbott the option of using
the
calculation procedures
of the CTG as
a substitute
for being
required
to conduct a stack test pursuant to 40 CFR 60, Appendix
A, Methods
25,
25A or
258.
The Agency states:
in
regulating
this
category
of
emission
sources
the Agency
will
not likely
routinely
request
stack
tests
to
determine
compliance,
however,
if
changed
circumstances
or
new,
future information indicate a need
to test
for
compliance,
the
Agency
reserves
the
right
to
request
a test from
the methods
listed.
Some
compliance
questions
cannot
be
satisfied
simply
and
exclusively
on
the
basis
of
calculations.”
(P.C.
4, pp. 8—9).
In response
to
a request by the Agency, USEPA conducted
a
review of Abbott’s proposal and submitted its comments
to the
Board
on December
14,
1987.
USEPA’s overall position on Abbott’s
proposal
is that “if formally submitted
to USEPA,
it would be
86—204
—13--
proposed for disapproval
in the Federal Register”
(P.C.
7,
p.
3).
On the stack test requirement of Section 215.487, USEPA
states:
The
Section
is
not
approvable
because
it
precludes
the
State
of
Illinois’
ability
to
require
a
stack
test.
This
capability
is
necessary
because
it
may
not
always
be
possible
to
accurately
calculate
a
source’s
emission
rate.
Stack
test
results
must
clearly
supercede
(sic)
the
results
obtained
by calculations which are not based upon USEPA
approved stack
test methods.”
(P.C.
7,
p.
3).
In response
to Abbott’s proposed Section 215.480, USEPA
states that averaging emissions from batch operations over the
duration of
the batch operation could present
a serious
rule
enforceability problem.
“For
existing
source,
averaging
any
volatile
organic compound
(VOC)
emissions over
a period
in
excess
of
24
hours
can
only
be
done
in
accordance
with
the
January
20,
1984,
memorandum
from
John
O’Connor,
former
Acting
Director
of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and
Standards,
and
only
as
source
specific
State
Implementation
Plan
(SIP)
revisions.
This memorandum, entitled “Averaging Times
for
Compliance
with
VOC
Emission
Limits
—
SIP
Revision Policy,”
prohibits
greater
than
24—
hour averaging
(which could occur from a batch
operation)
by VOC sources
in the Chicago
area
because
of
its
back
of
an
approved
ozone
SIP.”
(P.C.
7,
p.
1).
USEPA stated,
in addition, that an adequate basis
for deleting
laboratory hoods from the list of applicable sources had not been
established.
USEPA also commented on Abbott’s proposed exemption
levels.
USEPA stated that the exemptions bevels,
“which are
substantially in excess of Abbott’s emission levels,
are not
approvable.”
(P.C.
7,
p.
2).
USEPA’s
guidance
for
synthesized
pharmaceutical
plants
specifies
applicability
criteria
of
15
lb/day
for
all
sources
of
VOC.
The
only
area
in
which
Abbott
has
demonstrated
that
its
synthesized
pharmaceutical operations differ from those
in
the
Control
Technique
Guideline
(CTG)
is
in
its
use
of
Lake
Michigan
water.
However,
86—205
—14—
Illinois’
proposal
takes
into
consideration
this
additional
cooling
(which
results
in
reduced
emissions)
by
adding
an
annual
exemption
level.
This annual exemption level
has
the
effect
of
eliminating
sources
which
can
on
occasion
exceed
15
lbs/day,
from
the
specified
control
requirements.”
(P.C.
7,
p.
2).
Finally, USEPA noted
that Abbott’s proposal included
a
number
of exemption levels which
are higher than current
emissions.
USEPA stated:
“these
exemption levels are apparently based
upon
the
highest
emission
levels
which
can
occur before
the dollars per ton of control go
below
$3,000/ton
(according
to
Abbott).
Abbott
considers
$3,000/ton
as
the
highest
cost—effectiveness
value
which
is
consistent
with
RACT
...
There
is
no
basis
for
Abbott’s
use of $3,000/ton as
a yardstick
for
establishing RACT.”
(P.C.
7,
p.
2).
On January
8,
1988, Abbott filed
its Response
to USEPA
Comments with
a Motion for Leave
to File Instanter, which was
granted by Hearing Officer Order on January
18,
1988.
Abbott
devoted several pages of comment to
“the manner
in which USEPA
has elected
to participate
in this proceeding” and tendered
responses
to USEPA’s comments.
The Board
is not persuaded by
this Response that the record contains information and evidence
sufficient
to overcome
the indication, by USEPA itself,
that the
proposal of Abbott
is
not approvabbe.
The Board’s charge
is
to
promulgate approvable regulations imposing RACT on sources
in
non—attainment areas.
The Board
is persuaded
that the Agency’s
proposal satisfies that charge,
and the Board believes that the
Agency’s version is approvable by USEPA.
Therefore,
the Board
declines
to implement the language proposed by Abbott.
Section 215.102 Measurement of Vapor Pressures
The Agency proposed
to amend Section 215.102, Testing
Methods,
to add
a subsection on the measurement of vapor
pressures.
The Agency proposed similar
language
in R86—37,
a
proceeding devoted
to the definition of Volatile Organic
Material.
However,
in R86—37, which was adopted for final notice
on December
22,
1987,
and published at
12 Ill Reg. 815, January
8,
1988,
the Board adopted certain amendments
to the Agency’s
proposed language.
First,
for
a single component,
the vapor
pressure
is
to be determined by ASTM (American Society of Testing
and Materials)
Method D—2879—83,
or may be obtained
from
a
published source,
such as the sources listed
in Section
2l5.b02(b)(j.
The revision was necessitated
in R86—37 by JCAR
86—206
—15—
(Joint Committee on Administrative Rules)
comment that,
in
its
view,
the language as proposed by the Agency constituted an
improper series of
incorporations by reference.
Specifically,
JCAR believed that the textbooks listed were improper sources for
incorporation into the Administrative Code, as the Administrative
Procedures Act makes
no provision for
the incorporation of
textbooks.
As
a result,
the language was revised
to avoid
the
characterization of the textbooks as incorporations by
reference.
The Board notes that the language proposed
in R86—37
has been finalized.
Thus, much of
the language proposed at first
notice in this proceeding
is no longer necessary:
it has already
been adopted.
However,
the Board
has made certain changes
to Section
215.b02(b)(2),
regarding determination
of the vapor pressure of
a
mixture.
At the final hearing,
Dr. Harish
Rao,
of
the Board’s
Scientific and Technical Staff,
noted that there was concern
expressed during the course of the hearings that the Agency’s
proposed language was not clear.
Dr. Rao offered alternate
language, aimed
at clarifying the Agency’s
intent,
and requested
comment from the participants.
Both the Agency
(P.C.
1)
and
Abbott
(P.C.
2)
agreed that Dr. Rao’s language
is an acceptable
substitute
for
the Agency’s language and intent.
However, Abbott
objected
to the application of
Section 2l5.b02(b)(2), stating:
“the true vapor pressure
of
a mixture
is equal
to
the
sum
of
the
actual
vapor
pressures
of
each component
of
the mixture
(whether or
not
the mixture
is
a VOM as defined by regulation)
weighted
by
its
mole
fraction
in
the
mixture..,
any
other
method
of
calculation
which
does
not
take
into
account
every
component,
will
not
yield
the
correct
vapor
pressure of
a mixture.”
(P.C.
2,
pp.
1—2).
Abbott also criticizes
the Agency’s proposed method as being
“inconsistent with the methodologies embodied
in the CTG for
other RACT categories upon which
the Board has based
its other
corresponding RACT regulations.”
To alleviate the concerns
expressed public comment, the Board has added language to permit
the determination of the actual vapor pressure of a mixture
pursuant to ASTM Method D—2879—83, since the Agency’s proposed
language may not yield the correct vapor pressure of the
mixture.
However the Board assumes that the Agency’s proposed
measurement procedure will provide a more conservative approach
to the control of VOM emissions from pharmaceutical plant
operations.
Because the Agency’s proposed language states that
the vapor pressure of
a mixture “may be taken as either” rather
than “is either”
in Section 2l5.b02(b)(2),
the Board has opted to
retain the Agency’s proposed method
to provide an alternative
to
the ASTM method.
86—207
-16—
Finally,
the Board notes that the language “organic material
or volatile organic material” has been changed
to “volatile
organic liquid”
and that “not” has been deleted
in
Section
2b5.b02(b)(2)(A).
Also,
in 2b5.102(b)(2), language was added
clarifying
the sections applicabibity only to Subpart
T,
Definition
of VOM
In the first notice proposal, amendment was proposed
to the
definition of volatile organic material
(VOM).
As has been
previously noted, R86—37 was
a proceeding devoted entirely to the
definition of VOM.
The Agency has indicated in other
rulemaking
proceedings
(i.e., R86—40)
that
it included the proposed
amendment to VOM in proceedings other than R86—37 simply to put
the regulated community on notice that the definition was in the
process
of change.
As R86—37 has been adopted and
is
in effect,
the Board deems
it appropriate
to remove
the definition of VOM
from further consideration in this proceeding.
Compliance Date
In its final comments,
the Agency suggested amendment to the
proposal to provide
a compliance date of April
1,
1989.
The
Agency noted
that:
tihe
adoption
of
the
Agency
Proposal
would
require Abbott
to
install
a small
incinerator
and
two
wet
scrubbers
at
its
North
Chicago
Plant.
Mr.
Ponder
and Dr.
Reed,
both of whom
have
extensive
experience
in
VON
control
methods,
have
concluded
that
a
period
of
one
year
from
the
effective
date
of
the proposed
rube
constitutes
an
ample
time
period
for
compliance
in this case.
(P.C.
4,
p.
3).
Further,
the Agency stated that “USEPA’s interpretation of the
Clean Air Act and regulations
thereunder
do not mandate
a
December
31,
1987 compliance date.
To support this position,
the
Agency points
to
a number of
indications, including
(1)
Proposed
USEPA Approval
of Kansas Ozone SIP,
(52
FR 36963-36967), which
includes compliance dates beyond December
31,
1987,
(2)
Summary
of
EPA’s Proposed Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Attainment Policy
dated November
10,
1987, which defines “near
term attainment” of
the ozone standard
as being
three
to five years from the date of
SIP approval,
and
(3)
SIP:
Approval of Post-1987 Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas Not Attaining the tTAAQS,
(52 FR 45044—45121), which states that the meaning
of
“near
term”
is within
three years and,
for some areas, five years
of
EPA’S
approval
of the Area’s post—1987 plan revision.
(P.C.
4, pp.
3—
4).
86—208
—17—
Abbott does not disagree with the concept of proposing a
compliance date after December
31,
1987.
However, Abbott
objected
to the criteria used
to arrive
at the April
1,
1989
compliance date,
and proposed
a December
31,
1989 as being
preferable “due to the uncertainties inherent
in the permit
process.”
(P.C.
8,
p.
6).
Abbott’s objection to the April
1,
1989 compliance date stems from the Agency’s conclusion that “a
period
of one year from the effective date of this proposed rule
constitutes an ample time period
for compliance
in this case”
(See P.C.
8,
p.
4).
Abbott notes that the Agency’s conclusion
is
based
on
statements by Mr.
Ponder of PEI and Dr.
Reed of
the
Agency.
Abbott argues that Mr. Ponder
is:
“not qualified
to render
an opinion concerning
the
length
of
time required by IEPA to permit
any
particular
source
or
item
of
control
equipment.
The
permit
process
cannot
be
conducted entirely concurrent with the design,
procurement,
construction
and
installation
of
new control equipment.
The permit
issues must
be substantially resolved before Abbott or any
other
source
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
purchase
the
required
equipment
or
begin
construction and installation.
Even the final
design
of
the
equipment
could
be
affected
by
potential
permit
conditions,
of
which
Abbott
would
need
to
be
certain
before the equipment
could
be
selected
and purchased.
IEPA
often
requests
additional
information
during
the
permit
application
review
period,
and
it
is
often
necessary
to
waive
the permit decision
deadline
to
allow IEPA
to complete
its review
process,
determine
the
particular
permit
conditions and issue
the final permit.”
(P.C.
8,
p.
5).
Abbott also argues
that “the record does not show that Dr.
Reed has extensive experience
in VON control methods:
His
conclusion
that
Abbott
could
come
into
compliance with the proposed regulation
in one
year
is
speculative
and
is
supported only by
telephone
calls
to
two
vendors.
Abbott
did
not
testify
that
it
would
purchase
any
required
control
equipment
from
these
vendors.
Abbott
does not
know
if
the control
equipment manufactured by these
two vendors
is
suitable,
either
in
performance
or
materials
of
construction,
for
the
intended
applications.”
(P.C.
8,
p.
5).
86—209
—18—
The Board, perhaps better than anyone,
realizes the
injustice that would result from a December
31,
1987 deadline
imposed in this rule,
as
that date has already passed.
The Board
notes that it has considered this
issue
in other RACT
proceedings.
However,
information justifying
a date later than
December 31,
1987 had not been submitted
into the records of
those proceedings,
and the Board had been bound
by the evidence
in the record.
Here,
the Board
is pursuaded that the record
justifies a date later than December
31,
1987.
The only issue
remaining
is which date
to impose.
The Board
is not persuaded by
Abbott’s evaluations of
the credentials
of Mr.
Ponder
and Dr.
Reed.
Thus,
the Board
is not persuaded that Abbott’s criticisms
of the April
1,
1989 deadline are based on solid foundation.
Rather,
the Board agrees that a time period of approximately one
year from the date of
adoption of the rules will provide Abbott
ample time in which to comply with the regulations.
Therefore,
the Agency’s suggested compliance date of
April
1,
1989
is
accepted and incorporated
at second notice.
Incorporation by Reference
Certain materials have been incorporated by reference into
Section 215.105,
Incorporations by Reference.
First, proposed
Section 215.487 states
that certain test procedures are
to be
consistent with USEPA document EPA—450/2—78—04l.
The Board notes
that because this material constitutes
a standard or guideline of
an agency of the United States, the material must be incorporated
pursuant to Section 6.02(b)
of the Administrative Procedure Act,
which requires prior
approval by JCAR.
The Board applied
for and
on December 21,
1987 received written approval by JCAR to
incorporate the material by reference.
•Second, ASTM D 1946—67 and ASTM D 2382—76
American
Society
for Testing and Materials
test methods have been added to
the
list of incorporations by reference.
In R86—39, Synthetic
Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing, and R86—40,
Air
Oxidation Processes
in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry,
the Board adopted regulations which
utilize these two AST~4procedures.
During
the second notice
phase of those two rulemakings, JCAR objected
to the inclusion
of
the
two ASTM references
in Section 215.105 because, according
to
JCAR,
a section may not be proposed for amendment at second
notice that was not proposed for amendment at first notice.
There,
Section 215.105 had not been proposed for amendment at
first notice.
However, because
Section 215.105 had been proposed
for amendment in this proceeding, JCAR suggested that the Board
incorporate the ASTM methods
in this proceeding.
The Board
agreed and hereby complies with JCAR’s suggestion.
ASTM D 1946—
67 and ASTM D 2382—76 have been added at second notice.
86—210
—19—
ORDER
The Board hereby directs the Clerk
of the Board
to submit
the proposed amendments
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 211 and 215
to the
Joint Commission on Administrative Rules
for second notice
review:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
C:
EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 211
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
211.101
Incorporations by Reference
211.102
Abbreviations and Units
SUBPART B:
DEFINITIONS
Section
211.121
Other Definitions
211.122
Definitions
Appendix A
Rule into Section Table
Appendix B
Section
into Rule Table
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Sections
9 and
10 and authorized by
Section
27 of the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
1111/2,
pars.
1009,
1010 and 1027).
SOURCE:
Adopted
as Chapter
2:
Air Pollution, Rule 201:
Definitions,
R71—23,
4 PCB 191,
filed and effective April
14,
1972;
amended
in R74—2 and R75—5,
32 PCB 295,
at
3
Ill.
Reg.
5,
p. 777,
effective February
3, 1979;
amended
in R78—3 and 4,
35
PCB 75 and 243,
at
3
Ill. Reg.
30,
p.
124,
effective July 28,
1979;
amended
in R80—5,
at
7
Ill. Reg.
1244, effective January
21,
1983; codified at
7
Ill.
Reg.
13590;
amended
in R82—l
(Docket
A)
at
10
Ill.
Reg. 12624,
effective July
7,
1986;
amended in R85—
21(A)
at 11
Ill.
Reg.
11747, effective June
29,
1987;
amended
in
R86—34
at
11
Ill. Reg.
12267, effective July 10,
1987;
amended
in
R86—39 at 11
Ill. Reg.
20804, effective December
14,
1987;
amended
in R82—l4 and R86—37
at 12
Ill.
Reg. 787, effective
December
24,
1987; amended
in R86—bO at 12 Ill. Reg.
,
effective
______________________
86—211
—20—
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 211.122
Definitions
“In—Process Tank”:
A container used
for mixing,
blending, heating,
reacting, holding, crystallizing,
evaporating,
or cleaning operations
in the manufacture
of pharmaceuticals.
“Pharmaceutical”:
Any compound
or mixture,
other than
food, used
in the prevention, diagnosis,
alleviation,
treatment or cure of disease in man and animal.
“Production Equipment Exhaust System”:
A system for
collecting and directing into the atmosphere emissions
of volatile organic material from reactors, centrifuges
and other process emission sources.
“Reactor”:
A vat, vessel
or other
device in which
chemical reactions take place.
“Surface Condenser”:
A device which removes
a substance
from a gas stream by reducing the temperature
of the
stream, without direct contact between
the coolant and
the stream.
(Source:
Amended
at
Ill.
Reg.
________,
effective
____
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
-SUBCHAPTER c:
EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
215.100
Introduction
215.101
Clean—up and Disposal Operations
215.102
Testing Methods
215.103
Abbreviations and Conversion Factors
215.104
Definitions
215.105
Incorporations by Reference
215.106
Afterburners
215.107
Determination of Applicability
SUBPART
B:
ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE
AND LOADING OPERATIONS
86—212
—21—
Storage Containers
Loading Operations
Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks
External Floating Roofs
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
Compliance Plan
SUBPART C:
ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT
Section
215.141
215.142
215.143
215.144
Section
215 .202
215.204
215 .205
215.206
215 .207
215.208
215 .209
215.210
215.211
215.212
215. 213
Section
215.240
215.245
215.241
215.249
Separation Operations
Pumps and Compressors
Vapor
Blowdown
Safety Relief Valves
SUBPART
E:
SOLVENT CLEANING
SUBPART
F:
COATING OPERATIONS
Compliance Schedules
Emission Limitations
for Manufacturing Plants
Alternative Emission Limitations
Exemptions
from Emission Limitations
Compliance by Aggregation of
Emission Sources
Testing Methods
for Solvent Content
Exemption from General
Rule on Use of Organic
Material
Alternative Compliance
Schedule
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
Compliance Plan
Special Requirements for Compliance
Plan
SUBPART
H:
SPECIAL LIMITATIONS FOR SOURCES
IN MAJOR URBANIZED AREAS WHICH ARE
NONATTAINMENT FOR OZONE
Applicability
Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing
External Floating Roofs
Compliance Dates
Section
215 .121
215.122
215.123
215.124
215.125
215.126
Section
215.181
215.182
215.183
215.184
215.185
Solvent Cleaning
in General
Cold Cleaning
Open Top Vapor Degreasing
Conveyorized Degreasing
Compliance
Plan
86—213
—22—
Use of Organic Material
Alternative Standard
Fuel Combustion Emission Sources
Operations with Compliance Program
Viscose Exemption
(Repealed)
SUBPART N:
VEGETABLE OIL PROCESSING
Hexane Extraction Soybean Crushing
Hexane Extraction Corn Oil Processing
Recordkeeping for Vegetable Oil Processes
Compliance Determination
Compliance Dates and Geographical
Areas
Compliance Plan
SUBPART P:
PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
Section
215 .404
215.405
215.406
215.407
215 .408
Testing
and Monitoring
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
Alternative Compliance Plan
Compliance Plan
Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing
SUBPART
Q:
LEAKS FROM SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL AND
POLYMER MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT
Section
215.420
215.421
215.422
215.423
215.424
215.425
215.426
215.427
215.428
215.4 29
215.430
215.431
215.432
215.433
Applicability
General Requirements
Inspection Program Plan
for Leaks
Inspection Program
for Leaks
Repairing Leaks
Recordkeeping for Leaks
Reporting
for Leaks
Alternative Program for Leaks
Compliance Dates
Compliance Plan
General Requirements
Inspection Program Plan for Leaks
Inspection Program for Leaks
Repairing Leaks
SUBPART K:
USE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL
Section
215.301
215.302
215.303
215.304
215.305
Section
215 .340
215.342
215.344
215.345
215.346
215.347
Section
215.401
215.402
215.403
Flexographic
and Rotogravure Printing
Exemptions
Applicability of Subpart
K
86—214
—23—
SUBPART R:
PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED
INDUSTRIES;
ASPHALT MATERIALS
Section
215 .441
215 .442
215 .443
215.444
215 .445
215 .446
215 .447
215.448
215 .449
215.450
215 .451
215.452
215.453
Petroleum Refinery Waste Gas Disposal
Vacuum Producing Systems
Wastewater
(Oil/Water)
Separator
Process Unit Turnarounds
Leaks General Requirements
Monitoring Program Plan
for Leaks
Monitoring Program for Leaks
Recordkeeping
for Leaks
Reporting for Leaks
Alternative Program
for Leaks
Sealing Device Requirements
Compliance Schedule
for Leaks
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
SUBPART S:
RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS
PLASTIC PRODUCTS
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires
Green Tire Spraying Operations
Alternative Emission Reduction Systems
Testing and Monitoring
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
Compliance Plan
SUBPART
T:
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING
Section
215.480
215.481
215. 482
215.483
215 .484
215.485
215.486
215.487
215 .488
215.489
Applicability of Subpart T
Control
of Reactors,
Distillation Units, Crystallizers,
Centrifuges and Vacuum Dryers
Control
of Air Dryers, Production Equipment Exhaust
Systems and Filters
Material Storage and Transfer
In—Process Tanks
Leaks
Other Emission Sources
Testing
Monitors for Air Pollution Control Equipment
Compliance
SUBPART U:
COKE MANUFACTURING AND
215.434
215.435
215.436
215.437
215.438
Recordkeeping for Leaks
Report for Leaks
Alternative Program for Leaks
Open—Ended Valves
Compliance Plan
Section
215.461
215 .462
215.463
215.464
215.465
215.466
86—215
—24—
Section
215.541
Section
215.561
215.562
215.563
Section
215 .581
215.582
215.583
215.584
Section
215.601
215.602
215.603
215.604
215.605
215.606
215.607
215.608
Exception
Coke By—Product Recovery Plants
Coke By—Product Recovery Plant Leaks
Inspection Program
Recordkeeping Requirements
Reporting Requirements
Compliance Dates
Compliance Plan
Applicability
Definitions
Emission Limitations
for Air Oxidation Processes
Testing and Monitoring
Compliance Date
Pesticide Exception
SUBPART X:
CONSTRUCTION
Architectural Coatings
Paving Operations
Cutback Asphalt
SUBPART Y:
GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION
Bulk Gasoline Plants
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Gasoline Delivery Vessels
SUBPART
Z:
DRY CLEANERS
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners
Exemptions
Testing and Monitoring
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
Compliance Plan
Exception
to Compliance Plan
Standards for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners
Operating Practices for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners
BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY
Section
215.500
215.510
215.512
215.513
215.514
215.515
215.516
215.517
Section
215.520
215.521
215.525
215.526
215.527
SUBPART V:
AIR OXIDATION PROCESSES
SUBPART W:
AGRICULTURE
86—216
—25—
215.609
Program for
Inspection and Repair
of Leaks
215.610
Testing and Monitoring
215.611
Exemption for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners
215.612
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
215.613
Compliance Plan
SUBPART EB:
POLYSTYRENE PLANTS
Section
215.875
Applicability of
Subpart BB
215.877
Emissions Limitation
at Polystyrene Plants
215.879
Compliance Date
215.881
Compliance Plan
215.883
Special Requirements for Compliance
Plan
215.886
Testing
and Monitoring
Appendix A
Rule into Section Table
Appendix B
Section into Rule Table
Appendix C
Past Compliance Dates
Appendix D
List
of Chemicals Defining Synthetic Organic
Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing
Appendix
E
Reference Methods
and Procedures
Appendix
F
Coefficients
for the Total Resource Effectiveness
Index
(TRE) Equation
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section
10 and authorized by Section
27
of
the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1985,
ch.
llli/2 pars.
1010 and 1027).
SOURCE:
Adopted
as Chapter
2:
Air Pollution,
Rule
205:
Organic
Material Emission Standards and Limitations, R71—23,
4 PCB 191,
filed and effective April
14,
1972; amended
in R77—3,
33 PCB 357,
at
3
Ill. Reg.
18,
p.
41,
effective May 3,
1979;
amended in R78—3
and R78—4,
35 PCB 75, at
3
Ill.
Reg.
30,
p.
124, effective July
28,
1979; amended
in R80—5 at
7 Ill.
Reg.
1244, effective January
21,
1983; codified at
7
Ill.
Reg.
13601; Notice of Corrections at
7
Ill. Reg.
14575; amended in R82—l4 at 8
Ill. Reg.
13254,
effective July
12, 1984; amended
in R83—36 at 9
Ill.
Reg.
9114,
effective May 30,
1985; amended
in R82—14 at
9
Ill.
Reg.
13960,
effective August 28,
1985;
amended
in R85—28 at 11
Ill.
Reg.
3127,
effective February
3,
1987; amended in R82—l4 at
11
Ill.
Reg.
7296, effective April
3,
1987; amended
in R85—2l(A)
at 11
Ill.
Reg.
11770, effective June
29, 1987;
recodified
in R86—39 at
11
Ill.
Reg.
13541; amended in R82—14 and R86—l2
at
11
Ill. Reg.
16706,
effective September
30,
1987;
amended
in R85—2b(B)
at 11
Ill.
Reg.
19117, effective November
9,
1987;
amended
in R86—36,
R86—39,
R86—40 at 11
Ill. Reg.
20829, effective December
14,
1987;
amended in R82—14 and R86—37 at
12.
Ill. Reg. 815,
effective December
24,
1987; amended
in R86—lO at
12
Ill.
Reg.
______,
effective
_____________________
86—217
—26—
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 215.102
Testing Methods
a)
The total organic material concentrations in
an effluent
stream shall
be measured by a flame ionization detector,
or by other methods approved by the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Agency)
,
according
to the
provisions
of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 201.
b)
Measurement of Vapor Pressures
1)
For
a single—component,
the actual vapor pressure
shall
be determined by ASTM
(American Society of
Testing and Materials)
Method D—2879—83
(Approved
1983),
incorporated by reference
in Section
215.105,
or the vapor pressure may be obtained from
a published source such
as:
Boublik, T., V.
Fried
and
E. Hala,
“The Vapor
Pressure of Pure
Substances,” Ebsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,
New York
(1973), Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s
Handbook, McGraw—Hill Book Company
(1984), CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber
Publishing Company (1986—87),
Lange’s Handbook
of
Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw—Hub
Book
Company
(1985).
2)
For
a mixture,
the actual vapor pressure shall
be
determined by ASTM (American Society of Testing and
Materials)
Method D—2~892879—83 (Approved 1983),
incorporated by reference
in Section 215.105, or
the
vapor pressure may be
taken as either:
A)
If the vapor pressure of the o~gan~ema~tef~a~
o~volatile organic ma~e~a~liquid
is not
specified
in the applicable
rube,
the lesser
of the sum of the actual vapor pressure of
each component
or each volatile organic
material component,
as determined
in
accordance with 2l5.102(b)(l), weighted by its
mole fraction;
or
B)
If the vapor pressure of the organic material
or
volatile organic material is specified
in
the applicable rule,
the sum of the actual
vapor pressure
of each component
as determined
in accordance with 215.bO2(b)(l) weighted by
its mole fraction.
Section 215.105
Incorporations
by Reference
The following materials are incorporated by
reference:
86—218
—27—
a)
American Society
for Testing and Materials,
1916 Race
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103:
1)
ASTM D 1644—59 Method A
2)
ASTM D 1475—60
3)
ASTM D 2369—73
4)
ASTM D 2879—83
(Approved
1983)
5)
ASTM D 323—82
(Approved
1982)
6)
ASTM
D 86—82
(Approved 1982)
7)
ASTM
E 260—73
(Approved 1973),
E 168—67
(Reapproved
1977),
E 169—63
(Reapproved 1981),
B
20
(Approved 1985)
8)
ASTM D 97—66
9)
ASTM D 1946—67
10) ASTM D 2382—76
b)
Federal Standard l4la, Method 4082.1
C)
National Fire Codes, National Fire Prevention
Association, Battery March Park, Quincy, Massachusetts
02269
(1979)
d)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., EPA—45O/2—77-026,
Appendix A.
e)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.,
EPA—450/2—78—05l Appendix A and
Appendix
B
(December 1978).
f)
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published by
Executive Office of the President,
Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, D.C.,
1972
g)
40 CFR 60, Appendix
A, 1986
h)
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington
D.C.,
EPA—45O/2—78—04l.
(Board Note:
The
incorporatioris by reference listed above
contain no later amendments
or editions.)
86—2 19
—28—
(Source:
Amended
at
___
Ill. Reg.
effective
_______________
SUBPART T:
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING
Section 215.480
Applicability of Subpart T
a)
The rules
of this Subpart, except for Sections 215.483
through 215.485, apply to all emission sources
of
volatile organic material,
including but not limited to
reactors, distillation units,
dryers, storage tanks
for
volatile organic liquids, equipment
for the transfer
of
volatile organic liquids, filters, crystallizers,
washers,
laboratory hoods,
coating operations, mixing
operations
and centrifuges used
in manufacturing,
including packaging,
of pharmaceuticals,
and emitting
more
than 6.8 kg/day
(15 bbs/day)
of volatile organic
material and more than
2268 kg/year
(2.5 tons/year)
of
volatile organic material,
or,
if less than 2.5
tons/year,
these sections still apply if emissions from
any single source exceed 45.4
kg/day
(100 lbs/day).
b)
The following emissions shall
be excluded from a
determination of what constitutes more than
2268 kg/year
2.5 tons/year)
of VOM for the purposes of subsection
a)
above:
not more than
4535 kg/year
(5.0
tons/year)
of volatile organic material from each fluid
bed drier
or each tunnel drier, and not more than 6803
kg/year
(7.5 ton/year)
of VOM from each Accelacota.
This
su~bsectionshall apply only to fluid bed driers,
tunnel
driers and Accelacotas located
in
Libertyville Township,
Lake County,
Illinois, and only when such emissions are
not vented
to air pollution control equipment.
C)
Sections 215.483 through 215.485 apply to
a plant having
one
or more emission sources that:
1)
are used to manufacture pharmaceuticals; and
2)
emit more
than 6.8 kg/day
(15 lbs/day)
of volatile
organic material and more than 2268
kg/year
(2.5
tons/year)
of volatile organic material,
or,
if
less than 2.5 tons/year,
these sections still apply
if emissions from one or more sources exceed 45.4
kg/day (100
lbs/day).
d)
No person shall violate any condition
in
a permit when
the condition results
in exclusion
of
an emission source
from this Part
215, Subpart
T.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill.
Reg.
________,
effective
)
86—220
—29—
section 215.481
Control
of Reactors, Distillation Units,
Crystallizers, Centrifuges and Vacuum Dryers
a)
The owner
or operator shall control all reactors,
distillation units,
crystallizers, centrifuges and
vacuum dryers that are used
to manufacture pharmaceu-
ticals with surface condensers operated such that the
condenser outlet gas temperature does not exceed:
1)
248.2
K
(—13
F) when condensing volatile organic
material
of vapor pressure greater than 40.0 kPa
(5.8 psi)
at
294.3 K (70
F);
or
2)
258.2 K
(5
F)
when condensing volatile organic
material of vapor pressure greater
than 20.0 kPa
(2.9
psi)
at 294.3
K
(70 F);
or
3)
273.2
K (32
F)
when condensing volatile organic
material of vapor pressure greater than 10.0 kPa
(1.5
psi)
at 294.3 K
(70 F);
or
4)
283.2 K
(50
F) when condensing volatile organic
material
of vapor pressure greater than 7.0
kPa
(1.0
psi)
at 294.3
K
(70
);
or
5)
298.2
K
(77
F)
when condensing volatile organic
material of
vapor pressure greater
than 3.45 kPa
(0.5 psi)
at 294.3 K
(70
F).
b)
The owner
or operator shall enclose all centrifuges used
to manufacture pharmaceuticals
and that have an exposed
volatile organic liquid surface, where
the volatile
organic material
in the volatile organic liquid has a
vapor pressure of
3.45 kPa
(0.5 psi)
or more at 294.3 K
(70 F).
c)
The owner
or operator shall enclose all centrifuges used
to manufacture pharmaceuticals
and that have an exposed
volatile organic liquid surface, where the volatile
organic material
in the volatile organic liquid has a
vapor pressure
of
3.45 kPa
(0.5 psi)
or more at 924.3
K
(70
F)
(Source:
Added
at
Ill.
Reg.
________,
effective
_________
Section 215.482
Control
of Air Dryers,
Production Equipment
Exhaust Systems
and Filters
a)
The owner
or operator of an air dryer
or production
equipment exhaust system used to manufacture pharma—
86—22 1
—30—
ceuticals shall control
the emissions
of volatile
organic material from such emission sources by air
pollution control equipment which reduces by 90 percent
or more the volatile organic material that would other-
wise be emitted
into the atmosphere.
b)
The owner
or operator shall enclose
all rotary vacuum
filters and other filters used
to manufacture pharma-
ceuticals and that have
an exposed volatile organic
liquid surface, where
the volatile organic material
in
the volatile organic liquid has a vapor pressure
of 3.45
kPa
(0.5 psi)
or more at 294.3
K
(70 F).
(Source:
Amended
at
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective
______________
Section 215.483
Material Storage and Transfer
The owner
or operator
of
a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant
shall:
a)
Provide a vapor balance system or equivalent control
system that is at least 90.0 percent effective
in
reducing volatile organic material emissions from truck
or
railcar deliveries
to stora~e tanks with capacities
~qual
to or greater
than 7.57m~ (2,000 gallons)
that
store volatile organic liquids with vapor pressures
greater
than 28.0
kPa
(4.1 psi)
at 294.3
K
(70
F); and
b)
Install pressure/vacuum conservation vents set
at 0.2
kPa
(0.03 psi)
on all storage tanks that store volatile
organic liquids with vapor pressures greater than
10 kPa
(1.5
psi)
at 294.3 K
(70 F),unless
a more effective
control
system is used.
(Source:
Added at
Ill.
Reg.
________,
effective
_______________
Section 215.484
In—Process Tanks
The owner or operator shall install covers on all in—process
tanks used
to manufacture pharmaceuticals
and containing
a
Volatile organic liquid at any time.
These covers must remain
Closed, except when production,
sampling, maintenance,
or
Inspection procedures
require operator access.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill.
Reg.
________,
effective
______________)
Section 215.485
Leaks
86—222
—31-
The owner or operator of a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant
shall repair any component from which
a leak of volatile organic
liquid can be observed.
The repair shall be completed
as soon as
practicable but no later
than 15 days after
the leak
is found
unless the leaking component cannot
be repaired until
the process
unit
is shut down,
and the leaking component must then be
repaired before
the unit is restarted
(Source:
Added at
Ill.
Reg
.
effective
Section 215.486
Other Emission Sources
The owner
or operator of a washer, laboratory hood,
capsule
coating operation, mixing operation,
or any other process
emission source not subject
to Section 215.481 through 215.485
of
this Subpart,
and used
to manufacture pharmaceuticals
shall
control
the emissions
of volatile organic material from such
emission sources by:
a)
Air pollution control equipment which reduces by
81
•percent
or more the volatile organic material that would
otherwise be emitted
to the atmosphere,
or
b)
A surface condenser which captures all the volatile
organic material which would otherwise
be emitted
to the
atmosphere and which meets
the requirements
of Section
215.481(a)
of this Subpart.
(Source:
Added at
Ill.
Req.
________,
effective
_______________
Section 215.487
Testing
a)
The owner
or operator of any volatile organic material
emission source subject
to this Subpart shall,
at his
Own expense, demonstrate compliance
by methods
or
procedures listed
in Section 215.487(c).
b)
All tests pursuant to Section 215.487(a)
shall
be
performed
in conformance with the procedures
set forth
in 35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 283.
c)
Test procedures
to determine operation and maintenance
Compliance with this Subpart shall
be consistent with
EPA—45O/2—78—04l,
incorporated by reference
in Section
215.105.
Procedures
for testing
air pollution control
equipment
to determine compliance with this Subpart
shall use Part
230, Appendix A Method
25
(40 CFR 60,
Appendix A Method 25).
(Source:
Added
at
Ill. Req.
effective
86—223
—32—
Section 215.488
Monitors
for Air Pollution Control Equipment
a)
Ata
minimum, continuous monitors for the following
parameters shall
be installed
on air pollution control
equipment subject
to this Subpart:
1)
Destruction device combustion temperature
2)
Temperature rise across
a catalytic afterburner
bed
3)
Breakthrough
of volatile organic material on
a
carbon adsorption unit.
b)
Each monitor
shall be equipped with
a recording device.
C)
Each monitor
shall be calibrated quarterly.
d)
Each monitor
shall operate
at all
times while
the
associated control equipment
is operating.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective
______________
Section 215.489
Compliance Schedule
a)
The owner
or operator
of an emission source subject
to
this Subpart,
the construction
or modification
of which
has commenced prior
to
(effective date of
rule) must
complete on—site construction
or
installation of the
emission control or process equipment,
or
both,
so
as
to
operate
in compliance with
this Subpart by April
1,
1989.
b)
The owner and operator of any emission source subject
to
this Subpart,
the construction
or modification
of which
has not commenced prior
to
(effective date
of rube),
shall construct such source
so that
it will operate
in
compliance with this Subpart.
(Source:
Added
at
Ill. Req.
________,
effective
____________
IT
IS SO ORDERED
I,
Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Rube, Second Notice
Opinion and Order was adopted on the
~
day
of _________________________,
1987, by
a vote of
7O
86—224
—33—
Dorothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
86—225
