ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

6,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION

STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS:

)

R86-18

ORGANIC EMISSION GENERIC

RULE

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by 3. Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board on

a proposal

of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

to control

volatile organic material

(VOM)

through

a

generic rule.

The

Agency’s first proposal was

filed

on May 12,

1986.

After

consultation with the Agency,

the Agency suggested hearing dates

in October.

The first hearings were held

on October

24,

1986

in

Chicago and October

29,

1986

in Collinsville.

At hearing on

October

24, the Agency submitted

a Revised Proposal.

Another

hearing was held

in Springfield,

on December

11, 1986 at which

the Agency stated that

it

would further revise

its proposal.

A

Second Revised proposal was proffered

by the Agency at hearing

in

Springfield on February 10,

1987.

Another hearing was held on

February 11.

Two additional hearings were held

in

this matter on

April

23

arid

24

in Springfield.

At hearing

on April

23, the

Agency introduced another proposal for

the Board’s consideration,

referred

to as

the Alternative Generic Proposal.

(Alternative

Proposal).

The Agency has recommended that the Board adopt the

Alternative Proposal

rather than the original proposal

or

its two

revisions.

(R.

851).

Additionally, the Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group

(IERG)

filed

its own proposal

at hearing on

February 11,

1987.

(R.

613).

IERG later withdrew that proposal

and submitted

a modified version of

the Agency’s Alternative

Proposal at hearing

on April

23.

(R.

986).

At hearing on April

24,

1987, IERG requested

an additional

hearing

to resolve

a controversy between

the Agency and Dow

Chemical

(Dow)

concerning the proposed

rule’s applicability

to

Dow.

A hearing was set for June

18.

Subsequently,

IERG,

Dow,

and the Agency resolved their dispute,

and as

a result

the three

filed

a Joint Motion

to Amend

the Agency’s Alternative Generic

Proposal and IERG’s Version of

the Alternative Proposal on June

16,

1987.

The amendment essentially removes Dow from the

proposed rule’s applicability.

As

a consequence,

the June 18

hearing was cancelled.

The Alternative Proposal differs significantly from the

earlier Agency proposals

in its structure but not in its control

requirements.

The earlier proposals provided a blanket coverage

for

the rule’s applicability with specifically

listed

80—249

---

exemptions.

The newer Alternative Proposal specifies four

areas

of the rule’s applicability.

Presumably,

a source that does not

fall under

one

of these categories would not

be subject

to the

rule.

In general,

the Alternative Proposal would

impose controls

on specified types

of manufacturing process emission sources at

a

plant

if those emissions sources as

a group would emit 100 tons

or more of VON per year,

if no air pollution control equipment

were used,

and these emission sources are not already subject

to

a control technique guideline

(CTG)

based

rules.

The Alternative Proposal requires that RACT be utilized by

the sources subject

to the rule.

The four areas

of

applicability,

proposed as Subparts AA, PP,

QQ,

RR,

and the RACT

requirements

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 quantified

emission reduction.

2)

Miscellaneous Fabricated

81

reduction

in uncontrolled

Product Manufacturing

VON emissions;

for coating

Processes

(Proposed Subpart

lines, VOM emissions not to

PP)

exceed 0.42 kg/i

(3.5 lb/gal)

of coating applied.

3)

Miscellaneous Formulation

81

reduction

in uncontrolled

Manufacturing Processes

VOM emissions.

(Proposed Subpart

QQ)

4)

Miscellaneous Organic

81

reduction

in uncontrolled

Chemical Manufacturing

VON emissions.

Processes.

(Proposed

Subparts RR).

As

an alternative

to the control requirements

of proposed

Subparts PP,

QQ,

and RR,

sources may comply with the rule by

being subject

to an adjusted RACT limitation as determined

by the

Board.

The adjusted RACT limitation procedure is set forth

in

Subpart

I

of the Alternative Proposal.

Generally,

under

this

procedure, owners and operators would have

to make a showing

before the Board that the relevant control requirements as

specified

in Subparts AA,

PP,

QQ,

RR are not RACT for that

particular source and that

a different control requirement

is

RACT for that particular source.

Certain deadlines imposed by the Clean Air Act require that

the Board quickly reach

a final disposition of this matter.

If

the Board were to adopt as final the Agency’s Alternative

Proposal,

the owners and operators

of emission sources subject to

80—250

---

3

the rule would have

to

be

in compliance with the rules

by

December

31,

1987, according

to the rule’s provisions.

The Board

views

this as

a very tight

time frame within which the affected

owners

and operators might have

to act, particularly given

that

a

number

of time—consuming procedural

steps are yet

to

be

undertaken before final disposition.

Most participants

to this

proceeding have no major objections

to the Alternative Proposal.

Accordingly,

the Board adopts

the Agency’s Alternative

Proposal

for First Notice.

In taking this action,

the Board

believes that whatever

the outcome,

final disposition of

this

matter will proceed

in as timely

a fashion

as possible.

The

Board cautions that this action

in no way constitutes

a

determination by the Board on

the ultimate merits of

the proposed

rules.

The Board has held seven merit hearings

in this matter

generating

a transcript with over 1200 pages, and

it believes

that further merit hearings are unnecessary.

Consequently,

the

Board considers the merit

record in

this proceeding closed except

for the submission of final

comments by interested persons.

Final comments on the merit record are due by the end

of the

First Notice comment period.

In addition,

since the Board is

proposing this rule for First Notice,

any person may present

their

views and comments concerning

the proposed rule

or request

a public hearing pursuant to the procedures

of Section 5.01 of

the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1986

Supp.,

ch.

127,

par 1005.01.

Since

the Board

is not presently making

a substantive

determination with respect

to this proposed

rule,

it will not at

this time address the issue

as

to whether Viskase Corporation

(Viskase) should be subject

to the proposed rule.

However,

the

Board requests that Viskase,

in its comments, state

its position

as

to whether

the proposed

rule’s adjusted RACT procedure would

provide

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 following

specific points

in

its final

comments.

1)

In its Alternative Generic Proposal, the Agency has proposed

Subparts AA, PP,

QQ,

RR.

Certain language defining each

Subpart’s applicability

is common

to the four proposed

subparts.

Specifically,

the scope of applicability for each

supbart

“includes

process emission sources not subject to

Subparts

B,

B,

F,

N.

P1

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y,

or

Z of this

Part....”

This implies that the proposed generic rule may

apply to emission sources

that are subject

to Subparts not

listed above,

such

as Subparts C,

K,

T,

V, and W.

Is this

a

proper interpretation?

If

the generic

rule does apply to

emission sources which are subject to the control

requirements

of other subparts,

do the control requirements

of the generic rule take precedence over the control

80—25 1

---

4

requirements of

the other subparts?

Or

is the converse

true?

An analogous problem would develop if VOM

is defined

differently

in the generic rule with respect to its

definition

in another applicable subpart.

If

two different

definitions

of VOM could be applicable

to the same emission

source, 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 and

215.960 reads as follows:

b)

The requirements

of this Subpart shall apply,

except as

provided

in Subsection

(e)

below,

to

a

specified

manufacturing processes at

a plant, which plant

includes

process emission sources not subject to Subparts B,

E,

F,

N,

P1

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y,

or

Z

of this Part,

and which

process emission sources

as

a group would emit 100 tons

or more per year

of volatile organic material

if no air

pollution control equipment were used.

Subsection

(e)

of Sections 215.920,

215.940 and 215.960

states:

e)

Notwithstandincj Subsection

(h) above,

the provisions of

this Subpart do not apply to emission sources which are

regulated under Subparts

B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y,

or

Z

of this Part,

including emission sources which

would be subject to limits under

these Subparts

if

the

sources had sufficient size,

throughout or emissions,

and emission sources which meet specific exemptions

contained

in these Subparts.

A plain reading

of

these two subsections does not clearly

indicate the necessity of Subsection

(e)

in light

of

the

statement of applicability

in Subsection

(b).

In other

words, what

is the effective difference

in scope

applicability between the two subsections?

If there

is

a

difference,

can the Agency suggest alternative language which

would further elucidate that difference?

3)

The Alternative Proposal describes specific areas

of

applicability.

Previous Agency proposals were structured

such that there was

a general umbrella of applicability with

specific exemptions to that coverage.

As

a

result,

sources

which were once “exempt”

under the earlier proposals are now

merely not included

in the areas applicability under

the

Alternative Proposal.

In the process of developing

these

proposals,

the Agency has evaluated categories of

sources and

decided that the rule’s applicability

to these categories

is

not warranted.

On

a category—by—category

basis,

the Board requests that the

Agency state,

in summary fashion,

the general factors or

80—252

---

5

reasons, economically and technically based, behind the

Agency’s conclusion that the proposed generic

rule should not

apply.

In addition, citations to the record, whenever

possible, would further aid the Board

in reviewing this

issue.

This request supersedes

the similar

requests made

by

Dr.

Rao and the Hearing Officer at hearing on April

23.

(R.

915,

1028).

Motions

There are several outstanding motions

in this matter which

need

to he addressed by the Board.

At hearing on April

24,

1987,

IERG orally moved

for more hearings

in this matter or,

in the

alternative,

to establish

a separate docket

so that two issues

could

be explored further.

The issues are whether the counties

of McHenry, Kane,

DuPage and Will should

be

included in

the

proposed generic rule’s area

of applicability and whether

it

is

proper

to base

a rule for

the

control

of hydrocarbon emissions on

the EKMA model.

(R.

1115—1116).

IERG agreed to submit the motion

in writing

to the Board so the Agency could likewise respond

in

writing.

(R.

1120).

On May 27, 1987,

the Agency filed

a Motion to Close the

Merit Record.

In

its motion,

the Agency states that since IERG

had,

at that point,

not yet filed

its written motion

as promised

at the April

24 hearing,

IERG’s motion should be denied.

The

Agency requests that

a date closing the record be set because

further delay would

“jeopardize the needed timely progression of

this regulation”.

On May

29,

1987,

IERG filed an Objection to the Agency’s

Motion

to Close

the Merit Record as well

as

a Motion to Establish

a Separate Docket, which was the written follow—up to IERG’s oral

motion at the April 24th hearing.

In its Objection,

IERG states

that

it needed

to wait until transcripts of

the April hearings

became available before

it could submit

a written motion as

promised at

hearing on April

24.

In

its written Motion

to

Establish

a Separate Docket, IERG refers

the Board to IERG’s

argument

that it presented at the April

24 hearing when

it orally

requested additional hearings

or

a separate docket.

In its

written motion,

IERG is only requesting

a separate docket

in

order

to “address the issue of

the applicability

of this proposed

rule to McHenry, Will,

Kane,

and DuPage

Counties and use

of the

EKMA model”.

IERG further states

that it does not intend to

“delay

the timely progression of

the proposed generic rule;

the

establishment of

a separate docket would allow the technical

merit

issue to move forward”.

All—Steel,

Inc.

(All—Steel)

filed

its Response to the

Agency’s Motion to Close

the Merit Record on June

2.

Essentially, All—Steel requests that the Board not close the

merit record until All—Steel filed

its response

to questions

posed

to All—Steel by the Agency at the April

24 hearing.

The

Board 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 the

Agency,

the Hearing Officer discovered

that the May

29 filings

of

IERG and the June

2

filing of All—Steel were never

served upon

the Agency.

The service

list attached

to the filings did not

include the Agency.

The Hearing Officer issued

an order

requiring that in the future,

the Agency be served with all

filings.

The Hearing Officer supplied

the Agency with Board

copies

of the filings

at issue.

At the time the Hearing Officer

issued his Order, he spoke with one counsel for

IERG who stated

that the failure to serve

the filings on the Agency was

unintentional.

Also, subsequent

to the Order,

the Hearing

Officer received

a letter from All—Steel stating that its failure

to serve

the Agency was inadvertant.

The Agency filed

four motions

on April

23,

1987.

The first

is

a motion which requests leave

to file the remaining three

motions instanter.

That motion

is granted.

Next,

the Agency

moves

to strike All—Steel’s Response

to the Agency’s Notion to

Close the Merit Record due

to All—Steel’s failure

to serve its

filing on the Agency.

Similarly,

the Agency also moved

to strike

IERG’s May

29 filings

for failure

to serve the Agency.

Finally,

the Agency filed

its Response

to

IERG’s Motion

to Establish

a

Separate Docket,

the substance

of which will

be discussed later.

All—Steel

filed

a Response

to the Agency’s Motion

to Strike

on June

25,

1987.

IERG also filed

a Response on July

9,

1987.

Generally,

both All—Steel and IERG assert that the failure

to

serve

the Agency was unintentional and that their

respective

filings should not be

stricken.

Since

the Board

by

its action today

is setting

a date for

the close of

the merit record,

the Agency’s Motion to Close the

Record

is moot.

Similarly,

IERG’s Response and All—Steel’s

Response

to the Agency’s Notion to Close

the Merit Record,

the

Agency’s motions

to strike

those responses

for failing to serve

the Agency,

and IERG’s and All—Steel’s Responses

to the Agency’s

motions

to strike the responses are moot.

Agency’s Motion

to

Strike IERG’s Notion

for a Separate Docket due

to IERG’s failure

to serve the Agency

is denied.

The Board shares the Hearing

Officer’s

view,

as stated in his June

11 Order,

that

it is

reasonable

to expect that the proponent

of

a rulemaking be served

with motions.

However,

in this instance

it appears

that IERG’s

failure

to serve

the Agency was inadvertant.

The Agency

eventually received the IERG’s motion and was given an

opportunity

to file

a response.

As

a result,

the Board does not

find

it necessary to strike IERG’s motion.

Instead, the Board

will decide IERG’s Motion

to Establish

a Separate Docket and the

Agency’s response on their merits.

IERG’s Motion

to Establish

a Separate Docket

is based upon

the position that the record contains sufficient information

to

warrant further investigation

of the issues of whether

the

proposed generic

rule should apply

to McHenry, Will,

Kane,

and

80—254

---

7

DuPage counties and whether

it

is proper

to use the

EKMA

model

as

a basis

for the proposed rule.

IERG refers the Board

to the

arguments that

it presented at the April

24 hearing

in support

of

its motion.

With regard

to the county issue,

IERG stated at hearing,

With respect

to Mcflenry and Will,

it

is clear

those

are~

not

presently

designated

as

attainment

counties.

With

respect

to

Kane

and DuPage counties, we believe that LJSEPA

is

under

an

obligation

to

move

forward

with

rulemaking under the Seventh Circuit decision

and

it would

be

improper

to

be

adopted

sic

regulations

imposing RACT since USEPA has,

in

effect,

forwarded

the

mandate

of

the Seventh

Circuit.

(R.

1115—1116)

The Agency responds by stating that the county issue has

already been sufficiently addressed

in this proceeding

at

the

October

29,

1986 hearing and IERG has had

the opportunity to

respond

to

that

evidence

in

this

proceeding.

Consequently,

the

Agency

concludes

that

further hearings

on

that issue are

unnecessary.

In addition,

the

Agency

refers

to

Exhibit

34

which

is

a

letter,

dated

April

14,

1987,

from

Mr. Steve Rothblatt,

Chief of

the Air

and

Radiation

Branch,

of

the

United

States

Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S.

EPA)

to Mr. Michael Hayes,

Manager of

the Division of Air Pollution Control

for the

Agency.

In

that letter,

Mr.

Rothblatt

writes,

DuPage

and

Kane

counties

clearly

cannot

be

excluded

from

the

Chicago

area

EKMA

demonstration,

since

they

are

designated

nonattainment

and

are

integral

parts

of

the

Chicago

area.

While

Will

and

McHenry

Counties

are

no

longer

classified

as

nonattainment,

omitting

these

counties

from

RACT

requirements

would

require

substantial

justification

and

it

is

doubtful

that such

a

justification would

be

successful.

In

order

to

exclude

these

counties

from

the

EKMA

demonstration,

it

is

likely

that

(1)

additional controls would

be necessary in the

nonattaining

counties

and

(2)

USEPA

would

have

to

be

convinced

that emissions

in these

counties

do

not

contribute

to

the emissions

that

lead

to

the

violations

of

the

ozone

standard

found

in

and

downwind

of

the

Chicago

area.

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 new

SIP

revision

which

includes

a

new

EKMA

analysis of

necessary emission reductions and

which

achieves

the

necessary

emission

reductions

in the four county

(Cook, DuPasge,

Kane,

and

Lake

Counties)

area....

Please

be

aware that unless and

until

such

a

SIP

revision

were

approved,

the

Chicago

demonstration

area continues

to

include Will

and McHenry Counties as well as Cook, DuPage,

Kane

and

Lake

Counties,

and

failure

to

adopt

RACT

in

all

six

counties

could

result

in

imposition

of

a

variety

of

sanctions.

(R86—l8,

Exh.

#33,

p.

2)

With respect

to

the county issue,

the Board

is persuaded

by the

Agency’s position.

Secondly,

IERG asserts

that testimony

of Mr.

Erwin Kauper,

presented

at the April

24

hearing raises questions regarding

“the

use of

the

EKMA Model as

it

relates

to the

necessity

for

control

——

for

additional

control

of hydrocarbon emissions,

irrespective

of the area where

those emissions are located.”

(R.

1116).

In

response,

the

Agency

states

that

the

use

of

the EKMA model

is consistent not only

with

the

opinions

of

the

Board

for

the

last

eight

years,

but

also

the

efforts

of

the

Agency

and

numerous

industrial

representatives....If

the

EKMA

model

was

deemed

inappropriate,

not

only

would

Illinois

require

a

new attainment demonstration

and

a

new

SIP

but

also

revised

promulgated

RACT

regulations

and proposed RACT regulations.

(Agency Response,

p.

3)

The Board agrees with the Agency that it would be inappropriate

to question the use of the EKMA model

at this point

in the RACT

regulatory process.

Although IERG’s states

intent

is “not to delay the timely

progression of the proposed generic rule,”

the Board

is at

a loss

to determine how the opening

of

a separate docket,

to consider

issues that are integral

to the proposed generic rule, would not

further impact or delay

this proceeding.

As stated earlier,

the

Board recognizes

the importance in proceeding as expeditiously as

possible

in this matter.

Even

if the Board assumes that IERG’s

position

is

correct,

such

issues

would

be

fundamental

not

only

to

the proposed generic rule but also

to all the RACT proceedings.

At this point,

the Board sees no reason

to investigate, through

a

separate

docket,

the

foundation

for

all

the

RACT

rules.

Such

an

80—256

---

9

endeavor would only delay the needed progression of

the RACT

rulemaking process.

Therefore,

the Board hereby denies IERG’s

Motion

to Establish

a Separate Docket.

The Board notes

that

IERG,

like any other person,

is free

to present to the Board

a

regulatory proposal pursuant

to Section

28 of the Act.

VOM Definition

On March 19,

the Hearing Officer

in this Proceeding and the

Hearing Officer

in R86—37,

Definition of Volatile Organic

Material, Section 215.104,

issued

a Joint Order giving guidance

concerning

the Agency’s proposed new definition

of VON in R86—37

and the resulting impact upon the regulated community

if

this new

definition

were applied through the proposed generic

rule.

The

Joint

Order stated

that

it was “most appropriate

to address

the

potential

increased impact under

the Generic VOM Rule caused by

the expanded definition

of VON

in the R86—l8 docket.”

The Joint

Order further stated:

In

order

to

ensure

that

the

regulated

community has adequate notice

of the proposed

redefinition

of

VON

in

the

Generic

VON

proceeding,

the

hearing officers request

the

Agency

amend

its R86—l8 proposal

to show

the

proposed

redefinition

of VON contemplated

in

R86—37.

As

a result, when the Agency submitted

its Alternative

Proposal,

a definition

for VOM,

that was consistent with the

Agency’s proposal

in R86—37, was included.

On July 16,

1987,

the

Board adopted

the following definition

of VON in

the Proposed

Rule, First Notice for R86—37.

This definition, which would

apply to Subpart

I, AA,

PP,

QQ, and RR, states

that volatile

organic material

is:

any

organic

material

which

participates

in

atmospheric

photochemical

reactions

or

is

measured

by

the applicable

reference

methods

specified

under

Part

230,

Appendix

A unless

specifically exempted from this

definition.

Although

the

version

of

the

Alternative

Proposal that the Agency

filed with the Board contains this definition,

the version of the

Alternative Proposal that the Board

is adopting today for First

Notice does not contain

a definition

of VOM.

According to the

Hearing

Officers’

Joint

Order,

the

definition

of

VON

to

be

included

in

the

Agency’s

proposal

in

the

R86—18 docket was

to be

included

for

the

sole

purpose

of notifying the public of the

potential impact that

the VON definition proposal

in R86—37 might

have upon

the proposed generic rule’s scope

of applicability.

The R86—l8 docket was

to receive evidence concerning that

impact

not

the

propriety of the VON definition itself.

The latter

issue

was

to be

addressed

in the R86—37 docket.

It naturally follows

that

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 and

control requirements

of the proposed generic rule.

The version

of the Alternative Proposal adopted

for First Notice merely

reflects that fact.

In addition, the Board has made some minor changes

in the

wording

of the Alternative Proposal.

In particular,

the Board

draws

the Agency’s attention

to the new wording of Section

2l5.221(c)(2).

The Board believes

it has not changed the

substance 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 First

Notice publication.

The Clerk shall cause First Notice

publication of the proposed amendments

in the Illinois Register:

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

B:

DEFINITIONS

Add the following definitions to Section 211.122:

“Manufacturing

Process”:

A process emission source or

series

of

process emission sources used

to convert raw materials,

feed

stocks,

subassemblies or other components

into

a product,

either

for sale or for use as

a component

in

a subsequent manufacturing

process.

“Miscellaneous Fabricated Product Manufacturing Process”:

A manufacturing process involving one or more of the

following applications

(including any drying and curing)

of

formulations

and capable of emitting volatile organic

material:

Adhesives

to fabricate or

assemble components

or

products

Asphalt

solutions to paper

or fiberboard

Asphalt

to paper

or felt

Coatings

or dye to leather

Coatings

to plastic

Coatings

to rubber

or glass

Disinfectant material

to manufactured items

Plastic foam scrap or

“fluff” from the manufacture

80—258

---

11

of

foam containers

and packaging

material

to form resin pellets

Resin solutions

to fiber substrates

Rubber solutions

to molds

Viscose solutions

for food

casings

The storage and handling

of formulations associated with the

process described above.

The

use and handling

of organic liquids and other substances

for clean—up operations associated with

the process described

above.

“Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Process”:

A manufacturinq process which compounds one or more

of

the

following and

is capable

of emitting volatile organic

material:

Adhesives

Asphalt solutions

Caulks, sealant~or waterproofing agents

Coatings,

other than paint and ink

Concrete curing compounds

Friction materials and compounds

Resin solutions

Rubber

solutions

Viscose solutions

The storage and handling

of

formulations associated with the

process described above.

The use and handling

of organic

liquids

and other substances

for clean—up operations associated with the process described

above.

“Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process”:

A manufacturing process which produces by chemical reaction,

one

or more of

the following organic compounds

or mixtures

of

organic compounds and which

is capable

of emitting volatile

organic material:

Chemicals listed

in Part

215, Appendix D

Chlorinated and sulfonated compounds

Cosmetic, detergent,

soap or surfactant

intermediaries

or

specialties and products

Disinfectants

Food additives

Oil and petroleum product additives

Plasticizers

Resins

or polymers

Rubber additives

80—259

---

12

Sweeteners

Varnishes

The storage and handling of formulations associated with

the

process described above.

The use and handling

of organic liquids and other substances

for clean—up operations associated with

the process described

above.

“Paint Manufacturing Plant”:

a plant that mixes,

blends, and/or

compounds enamels,

lacquers,

sealers,

shellacs,

stains,

varnishes

or pigmented surface coatings.

“Reasonably Available Control Technology”

(RACT):

the lowest

emission limitation

that

an emission source

is capable

of meeting

by the application of control

technology that

is

reasonably

available 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 ink

manufacturing plants which:

1)

include process emission sources not subject

to

Subparts B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

0,

R,

S,

U,

X, Y or

Z of

this Part,

and which process emission sources

as

a

group would emit 100

tons or more per year

of

volatile organic material

if no air pollution

control equipment were used,

or

2)

produce more than 2,000,000 gallons per year of

paints

or ink formulations, which contain less than

10 percent,

by weight, water,

and ink formulations

not containing as

the primary solvents water, McGee

oil, or glycol.

Section 215.621

Exemption for Waterbase Material and Heatset

Offset Ink

The requirements

of Sections 215.624,

215.625 and 215.628(a)

shall not apply to equipment while

it

is being used to produce

paint or ink formulations which contain 10 percent or more,

by

weight, water,

or inks containing McGee oil and glycol

as the

primary solvent.

80—260

---

13

Section

215.623

Permit Conditions

No person shall violate any condition in

a permit when the

condition

results

in exclusion

of the plant

or an emission source

from 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 paint

or

ink unless:

a)

The mill,

tank,

vat or vessel

is equipped with

a cover

which completely covers the mill,

tank,

vat or

vessel

opening,

except

for

an opening no larger than necessary

to allow for safe clearance for

a mixer

shaft.

Such

cover shall extend

at least

1/2 inch beyond the outer rim

of tho opening

or

be attached

to

the

rim.

b)

The cover remains

closed,

except when production,

sampling,

maintenance,

or inspection procedures

require

access.

C)

The cover

is maintained

in good condition,

such

that

when

in place,

it maintains contact with

the rim of the

opening

for

at

least

90

of the circumference of the

rim.

Section 215.625

Grinding Mills

a)

No person shall operate

a grinding mill

for

the

production

of paint or

ink which

is not maintained

in

accordance with

the manufacturers specifications.

h)

No person shall operate

a grinding mill fabricated or

modified after

(effective date of proposal)

which

is not equipped with fully enclosed screens.

c)

The manufacturer’s specifications shall

be kept on file

at the plant by the owner

or operator

of

the grinding

mill and

be made available upon reasonable request.

Section 215.628

Leaks

The owner or operator of

a paint or

ink manufacturing plant

shall,

for the purpose of detecting leaks,

conduct an equipment

monitoring program consistent with the following:

a)

Each pump shall

be checked by visual inspection each

calendar week

for indications

of leaks,

that

is,

liquids

dripping from the pump seal.

If there are indications

of liquids dripping from the pump seal,

the pump shall

be repaired as soon

as practicable,

but no later than

15

calendar days after

the leak

is detected.

80—261

---

14

b)

Any pump,

valve,

pressure relief valve,

sampling

connection,

open—ended

valve,

and flange or

connector

containing

a fluid which is

at least

10 percent by

weight volatile organic material which appears

to

be

leaking on the basis

of sight,

smell,

or sound shall

be

repaired as soon as practicable,

but no later than

15

calendar days after

the leak

is detected.

c)

A readily visible identification shall

be attached

to

leaking equipment.

The identification may be removed

upon repair,

that

is, when the equipment

is adjusted or

otherwise altered to allow operation without leaking.

d)

When

a leak is detected,

the owner

or operator

shall

record

the date of detection and repair and the record

shall

be

retained at the plant

in

a readily accessible

location for

at least

2 years from the date

of each

detection or

each repair attempt.

Section 215.630

Clean Up

a)

No person

shall clean paint or

ink manufacturing

equipment with organic solvent unless the equipment

being cleaned

is completely covered or enclosed except

for an

opening no larger than necessary to allow safe

clearance,

considering the method and materials being

used.

b)

No person shall

store organic wash solvent

in other

than

closed containers,

unless closed containers are

demonstrated

to be

a safety hazard, or dispose of

organic wash solvent

in

a manner such that more than

20

percent by weight

is allowed

to evaporate into the

atmosphere.

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:

MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED PRODUCT

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 215.920

Applicability

a)

The requirements of

this Subpart shall

apply to the

following counties:

Cook, DuPage,

Kane,

Lake,

Macoupin,

Madison, McHenry, Monroe,

St.

Clair and Will.

b)

The requirements of

this Subpart shall apply, except as

provided in Subsection

(e) below,

to miscellaneous

fabricated 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,

or

Z

of

this Part,

and which process emission sources as

a

group would emit 100 tons or more per year

of volatile

organic material

if no air pollution control equipment

were used.

c)

If

a plant ceases to fulfill

the criteria of Subsection

(b),

the requirements

of this Subpart shall

continue to

apply to

a miscellaneous fabricated products

manufacturing process emission source which was subject

to 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 organic

material

to the atmosphere less than or

equal

to

1.0

ton per year

if the total emissions from such

sources not complying with Section 215.926 does not

exceed

5.0 tons per year,

and

2)

Emissi.on sources whose emissions of volatile

organic material are subject

to limits

in Part 230

or Part 231;

or the Lowest Achievable Emission

Rate, pursuant

to

35

Ill. Adm. Code Part

203;

or

Best Available Control Technology,

pursuant to

40

CRF 52.21 or

Section 9.4

of the Act.

e)

Notwithstanding Subsection

(b) above,

the provisions

of

this Subpart do not apply to emission sources which are

regulated under Subparts B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y,

or

Z

of this

Part,

including emission sources which

would be subject

to limits

under

these Subparts

if the

sources had sufficient size,

throughput or emissions,

and emission sources which meet specific exemptions

contained

in these Subparts.

Section 215.923

Permit Conditions

No person shall violate any condition in

a permit when the

condition results

in exclusion of the plant

or an emission source

from this Subpart.

Section 215.926

Control Requirements

a)

Every owner

or operator

of an emission source of

volatile organic material shall operate

in compliance

with RACT,

which

for emission sources subject

to this

Subpart shall be:

1)

Emission capture and control

techniques which

achieve an overall reduction

in uncontrolled

volatile organic material emissions of

at least

81;

or

80—263

---

16

2)

For coating

lines,

volatile organic material

emissions not

to exceed 0.42 kg/l

(3.5 lb/gal)

of

coating materials

as applied,

excluding water and

any compounds which are specifically exempted

from

the definition of volatile organic material,

on

a

daily basis.

Owners and operators complying with

this Subsection 2l5.926(a)(2)

are not required

to

comply with Section 215.301;

or

3)

An adjusted RACT emissions limitation obtained

pursuant to Subpart

I.

b)

Owners and operators of emission sources subject to this

Subpart shall

comply with its requirements by December

31,

1987.

Subpart QQ:

MISCELLANEOUS FORMULATION MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 215.940

Applicability

a)

The requirements of this Subpart shall

apply

to the

following counties:

Cook,

DuPage,

Kane,

Lake, Macoupin,

McHenry, Monroe,

St. Clair

and Will.

b)

The requirements of this Subpart shall apply,

except as

provided

in Subsection

(e)

below,

to miscellaneous

formulation manufacturing processes at

a plant which

plant includes process emission sources not subject

to

Subparts

B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y or

Z

of this

Part,

and which

process emission sources as

a group

would emit 100 tons or more per year

of volatile organic

material

if no air pollution control equipment were

used.

c)

If

a plant ceases

to fulfill

the criteria of Subsection

(b),

the requirements

of this Subpart shall continue

to

apply

to

a miscellaneous formulation manufacturing

process emission source which was subject to and met the

control requirements of

Section 215.946.

d)

No limits under

this Subpart shall apply

to:

1)

Emission sources with emissions of volatile organic

material

to the atmosphere less than or equal

to

1.0 ton per year

if the total emissions from such

sources not complying with Section 215.946 does not

exceed

5.0

tons per year,

and

2)

Emission sources whose emissions of volatile

organic material are subject

to limits

in Part 230

or Part 231;

or

the Lowest Achievable Emission

Rate,

pursuant

to 35

Ill. Adm. Code Part

203; or

Best Available Control Technology,

pursuant to

40

CFR 52.21

or Section 9.4 of the Act.

80—264

---

17

e)

Notwithstanding Subsection

(b)

above,

the provisions of

this Subpart do not apply to emission sources which are

regulated under Subparts B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y

or

Z of this Part,

including emission sources which

would

be subject

to limits under

these Subparts

if the

sources had sufficient size,

throughput

or emissions,

and emission sources which meet specific exemptions

contained

in these Subparts.

Section 215.943

Permit Conditions

No person shall violate any condition in a permit when the

condition results

in exclusion of the plant or

an emission source

from this Subpart.

Section 215.946

Control Requirements

a)

Every

owner

or operator of

an emission source

of

volatile organic material shall operate in compliance

with RACT,

which

for emission sources subject

to this

Subpart shall

be:

1)

Emission capture and control techniques which

achieve an overall

reduction

in uncontrolled

volatile organic material emissions

of

at least

81;

or

2)

An adjusted RACT emissions limitation obtained

pursuant to Subpart

I.

b)

Owners

and operators of emission sources subject to this

Subpart shall comply with its requirements by December

31,

1987.

Subpart RR:

MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING

PROCESSES

Section 215.960

Applicability

a)

The requirements of

this Subpart shall apply

to the

following counties:

Cook, DuPage,

Kane, Lake, Macoupin,

Madison,

Mdflenry, Monroe,

St.

Clair and Will.

b)

The requirements of this Subpart shall apply,

except as

provided

in Subsection

(e)

below,

to miscellaneous

organic chemical manufacturing processes at

a plant

which processes include emission sources not subject

to

Subparts B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y or

Z of this

Part,

and which processes as

a group woule emit

100 tons

or more per year

of volatile organic material

if

no

air

pollution 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

to

apply

to

a miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing

process emission source which was subject

to and met the

control requirements of Section 215.966.

d)

No limits under

this Subpart shall apply to:

1)

Emission sources with emissions of volatile organic

material

to the atmosphere less than or equal

to

1.0 ton per year

if the total emissions from such

sources not complying with Sectin 215.966 does not

exceed

5.0 tons per year, and

2)

Emission sources whose emissions of

volatile

organic material are subject

to

limits in Part 230

or Part 231;

or

the Lowest Achievable Emission

Rate,

pursuant to

35

Ill. Adm. Code Part 203;

or

Best Available Control Technology, pursuant to 40

CFR 52.21

or Section 9.4

of the Act.

e)

Notwithstanding Subsection

(h)

above,

the provisions

of

this Subpart do not apply

to emission sources which are

regulated under

Subparts B,

E,

F,

N,

P,

Q,

R,

S,

U,

X,

Y

or

Z

of

this Part,

including emission

sources which

would

be subject to

limits under

these Subparts

if the

sources had sufficient size,

throughput or emissions,

and emission sources which meet specific exemptions

contained

in these Subparts.

Section 215.963

Permit Conditions

No person shall

violate any condition in

a permit when the

condition results

in exclusion of the plant

or

an emission source

from this Subpart.

Section 215.966

Control Requirements

a)

Every owner or

operator of an emission source

of

volatile organic material shall operate

in compliance

with

PACT,

which

for emission sources subject to this

Subpart shall

be:

1)

Emission capture and control techniques which

achieve an overall

reduction

in uncontrolled

volatile organic material emissions of

at least

81;

or

2)

An adjusted RACT emissions limitation obtained

pursuant to Subpart

I.

b)

Owners and operators of emission sources subject

to this

Subpart shall comply with its requirements by December

31,

1987.

80—266

---

19

SUBPART

I:

ADJUSTED RACT EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS

Section 215.220

Applicability

Owners and operators

of emission

sources subject

to Subparts

PP,

QQ,

or RR may petition the Illinois Pollution Control Board

for

an Adjusted PACT Emissions Limitation for

such emission

sources.

Owners and operators of emissions sources which are

in

existence

on

(the effective date of

these Subparts)

shall submit to the Illinois Pollution Control Board

a Notice

of

Intent

to Petition for

an Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation

by

(the effective date plus 60 days).

Petitions for

an

Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation shall be filed

by

(the effective date plus 120 days)

or at the time

a construction

permit

is

applied for from the Agency for the emission source,

or

at

the time

an emission source meets

the applicability criteria

set forth

in such Subparts.

Section 215.221

Petition

A petition for

an Adjusted RACT Emission Limitation

shall

contain:

a)

A specific proposal

of,

and support

for, an Adjusted

RACT Emissions Limitation which would apply to

the

emission source that

is the subject of

the petition as

well

as

a showing that the application of

the applicable

limti.s(s)

of Section

2l5.926(a)(l)

and

(2),

2l5.946(a)(l)

or 215.966(a)(1) would be technically

infeasible and/or economically unreasonable

for

that

emission source.

b)

Information on the technical feasibility of reducing

emissions

of volatile organic material from the emission

source

including, but not limited to:

1)

A complete description of the operations

of the

emission source.

2)

A discussion of all available compliance strategies

for achieving the emissions reduction prescribed by

the applicable section

and the technical

feasibility

of

each

compliance

strategy.

3)

Comparisons of the nature and quantity of

uncontrolled emissions to:

A)

Emissions reductions which would be achieved

pursuant

to the applicable Section for each

compliance strategy listed

in Section

2l5.221(b)(2);

and

B)

Emissions reduction which would

be achieved

pursuant

to the proposed Adjusted RACT

80—267

---

20

Emissions Limitation.

4)

The basis

for determining that the proposed method

of emissions reduction

is RACT

for the that

emission source and all information supporting that

determination.

c)

Information

on the economic reasonableness of reducing

emissions

of volatile organic material from the emission

source including, but not limited

to:

1)

A comparison of

the relative costs

of achieving the

emissions reduction pursuant to Section

2l5.926(a)(l)

and

(2),

2l5.946(a)(l)

or

2l5.966(a)(l)

and pursuant to the proposed Adjusted

RACT Emissions Limitation including

for each

compliance strategy:

A)

Capital costs;

B)

Operating costs;

C)

Any economic benefits,

such

as material

recovery;

and

D)

Other

costs.

2)

An evaluation

of the cost effectiveness

in terms

of

annualized net cost per ton

of volatile organic

material

reduction

for each compliance strategy.

Volatile organic material reduction

is the amount

of uncontrolled volatile organic material emissions

less the amount of volatile organic material

emissions after controls.

3)

An evaluation of the effects of

the cost

of

achieving emissions reduction in relation

to:

A)

The annualized capital and operating budgets

of the emission source over

the most recent

five—year period; and

B)

The cost

of the product or services provided

by

the emission source.

4)

The basis

for determining that the proposed method

of emissions reduction

is PACT

for the emission

Source and all information supporting

that

determination.

Section 215.223

Public Hearing

In

a public hearing before the Board held pursuant to the

requirements

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

to

Section 2l5.926(a)(1) and

(2), 2l5.946(a)(l) or

215.966(a)(l)

does not constitute PACT for

the specific

emission source;

and

b)

That compliance with the proposed Adjusted RACT

Emissions Limitation:

I)

Is RACT

for that emission source based on the

information provided

in the petition and at the

hearing addressing subjects described in Sections

215.221 and

2)

Will

not cause or contribute

to an increase

in

emissions

so as

to prevent or

interfere with the

attainment

of

the

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

for ozone and carbon monoxide or with any

portion of

the Illinois State

Implementation Plan.

Section 215.224

Board Action

If an owner

or operator

of an emission source complies with the

requirements of Sections 215.221 and 215.223

the Board may

establish an Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation.

Such Adjusted

RACT Emissions Limitation:

a)

Shall substitute

for that limitation otherwise

prescribed

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 emission

source.

Section 215.227

Agency Petition

The Agency may petition the Board

for an Adjusted RACT Emission

Limitation

for

an emission source subject to this Subpart at any

time prior to December

31,

1987.

The provisions

of Sections

215.221, 215.223,

and 215.224 shall apply

to such petitions.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on

the

~

day of

~

,

1987,

by

a vote

of

6—c:)

.

Dorothy M. Gum?; clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

80—269