ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 4, 1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION
STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS:
)
R86-18
ORGANIC EMISSION GENERIC
RULE
)
PROPOSED RULE. SECOND NOTICE.
OPINIOt’~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
Februrary 11. Two additional hearings were held in this matter
on April 23 and 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 Board held a total of seven merit hearings prior to
adopting the Agency’s Alternative Proposal for First Notice.
These hearings generated a hearing record with 59 exhibits and a
written transcript containing more than 1200 pages. On August 6,
86-227
1987, the Board adopted the Agency’s Alternative Proposal. In
its Opinion, the Board explained its rationale behind the First
Notice Adoption.
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 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.
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.
(R 86—18, slip op. at 4,
August 6, 1987)
The Alternative Proposal was published in the Illinois
Register on August 28, 1987. Consequently, First Notice comments
were due to be filed by October 14, 1987.
On November 2, 1987, the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources (DENR) filed an Economic Impact Study (EcIS). Pursuant
to Section 27(b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
the Board held two hearings on the EcIS. The first EcIS hearing
86—228
3
was held in Springfield on December 14, 1987 and the second EcIS
hearing was held on December 18th in Chicago. The record
generated by these EcIS hearings includes 16 exhibits and a
transcript totaling over 300 pages. Comments on this EcIS
hearings were due to be filed on January 11, 1988.
Alternative Proposal
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
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 VOM 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 redu~:tion in uncontrolled
Product Manufacturing
VOM emissions; for coating
Processes (Proposed Subpart
lines, VOM emissions not to
PP)
exceed 0.42 kg/l (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
VOM emissions.
Processes. (Proposed
Subpart RR).
As an alternative to the control requirements of proposed
Subparts PP, QO, and RR, sources may comply with the rule by
86—229
4
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 PP, QQ, RR are not RACT for that particular
source and that a different control requirement is RACT for that
particular source.
Motions
The Board finds it useful to reiterate its position with
regard to certain motions that the Board disposed of by its First
Notice Opinion. 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 were 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 stated 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 requested 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 stated
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 referred 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 only requested 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 stated 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”.
Allsteel, Inc. (Alisteel) filed its Response to the Agency’s
Motion to Close the Merit Record on June 2. Essentially,
Allsteel requested that the Board not close the merit record
until Allsteel filed its response to questions posed to Allsteel
86—230
5
by the Agency at the April 24 hearing. The Board notes that
Allsteel filed its response on June 19, 1987.
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 Allsteel 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 Allsteel stating that its failure to serve the Agency
was inadvertent.
The Agency filed four motions on April 23, 1987. The first
was a motion which requested leave to file the remaining three
motions instanter. That motion was granted. Next, the Agency
moved to strike Allsteel’s Response to the Agency’s Motion to
Close the Merit Record due to Allsteel’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.
Allsteel 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 Allsteel and IERG assert that the failure to
serve the Agency was unintentional and that their respective
filings should not be stricken.
Since the Board in its First Notice Opinion set a date for
the close of the merit record, the Agency’s Motion to Close the
Record was considered moot. Similarly, IERG’s Response and
Allsteel’s Response to the Agency’s Motion to Close the Merit
Record, the Agency’s motions to strike those responses for
failing to serve the Agency, and IERG’s and Allsteel’s Responses
to the Agency’s motions to strike the responses were found
moot. Agency’s Motion to Strike IERG’s Motion for a Separate
Docket due to IERG’s failure to serve the Agency was 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
appeared 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 did not find it necessary to strike IERG’s motion.
Instead, the Board decided IERG’s Motion to Establish a Separate
Docket and the Agency’s response on their merits.
86— 231
6
IERG’s Motion to Establish a Separate Docket was 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
DuPage counties and whether it is proper to use the EKMA model as
a basis for the proposed rule. IERG referred 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 McHenry and Will, it is clear
those ar~, not presently designated as
attainment counties. With respect to Kane
and DuPage counties, we believe that USEPA 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 responded 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 concluded that further hearings on that issue were
Unnecessary. In addition, the Agency referred 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
*
The Board notes that counsel for IERG likely meant to say
“nonattainment”.
86—232
7
nonattaining counties and (2) TJSEPA 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 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 asserted 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 stated that its intent was “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,
86— 233
8
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 endeavor would only delay the needed
progression of the RACT rulemaking process. For the above
reasons, the Board denied 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.
VON Definition
On March 19, 1987 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 VOM 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 VOM
proceeding, the hearing officers request the
Agency amend its R86—18 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. The Board adopted a
new definition of VON as final on December 22, 1987. 12 Ill.
Reg. 787, 815.
Although the version of the Alternative Proposal that the
Agency filed with the Board contains a definition for VOM, the
version of the Alternative Proposal that the Board is adopting
today does not contain a definition of VON. According to the
Hearing Officers’ Joint Order, the definition of VON to be
included in the Agency’s proposal in the R86—l8 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
86—234
9
that the record in R86—l8 was not developed for the purpose of
justifying the new VON definition, but rather applicability and
control requirements of the proposed generic rule. The version
of the Alternative Proposal adopted for today merely reflects
that fact. The definition of VON adopted in R86—37 applies.
In addition, the Board has made some minor changes in the
wording of the Alternative Proposal. In particular, the Board
has changed the wording of Section 2l5.261(c)(2). The Board
believes it has not changed the substance of that provision but
merely clarified the wording. The Agency has agreed to this
change. (P.C. #6, p. 66).
Subpart AA
——
Paint and Ink Manufacturing
In Subpart AA, the Agency has proposed to regulate emissions
from certain paint and ink manufacturing plants. The Agency
states that several other jurisdictions regulate such operations;
specifically, the Agency points to Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin,
the Bay Area and South Coast Air Management Districts of
California, and Jefferson County in Alabama as being
jurisdictions where such regulation of paint and ink
manufacturing plants exist or are pending. The Agency has
reviewed the requirements of these jurisdictions and has
incorporated the most stringent regulatory provisions from each
of these jurisdictions into the proposed Subpart AA. In general,
Subpart AA does the following:
1) Has applicability determined by either major non—CTG
emissions (emissions of 100 tons or more per year of VON if
no air pollution control devices were used) or solvent paint
and ink production exceeding a certain throughput (2,000,000
gallons per year of paint and ink formulations);
2) Exempts production of water—based paints and heat—set, off-
set ink from control requirements;
3) Requires properly operated lids on mixers;
4) Requires properly operated grinding mills and enclosure on
new mills;
5) Requires systematic detection and repair of leaks;
6) Requires operating practices to minimize solvent losses
during cleaning;
7) Requires practices which minimize loss of waste solvents.
(April 23, 1987 R. 872—873).
The Agency asserts that it cannot justify the control of
operations which manufacture entirely water—based materials or
86—235
10
heat—set, off—set ink oils because such operations would not emit
VON. Consequently, the Agency in Subpart AA has made a
distinction between these types of materials which would not be
regulated and others which would. Also, the term “McGee Oil”
which was included in the alternative proposal published for
First Notice should in fact be spelled “Magie.” Evidently, this
material is an oil solvent which boils at temperatures in excess
of 450 F and which has minimal vapor pressure at ambient
temperatures. (April 23, 1987, R. 874—875). The Agency has
proposed a production level of applicability of 2,000,000 gallons
per year or more. This figure was arrived at so that all the
facilities which the Agency has identified in its inventory would
be included under the applicability of this Subpart. (April 23,
1987, R. 874). The Agency has also proposed a 12 gallon
exemption for an open top mill tank, vat, or vessel. That is,
such containers with a volume of less than 12 gallons would not
have to be regulated. This level of exemption was chosen because
the California rules indicate that this is the lowest volume
vessel for which lids are appropriate. (April 23, 1987, R.
875). The Agency states that the rules promulgated in other
jurisdications (the Michigan rule is only pending) established “a
strong precedent for RACT” for the operations as specified by
Subpart AA. The Agency states that “to ignore this precedent and
not subject these Illinois operations to generic emission limits
would logically risk USEPA disapproval of that portion of the
Agency’s proposed rule.” The Agency also concludes that the
requirements under Subpart AA are technically feasible and
economically reasonable. (P.C. #6, p. 13). The Board notes that
no opposing testimony from any paint and ink manufacturer was
presented at hearing.
Subpart PP
——
Miscellaneous Fabricated Product Manufacturing
Processes
In Subpart PP, the Agency has proposed to regulate
manufacturing processes which involve various applications,
including any drying and curing, of certain formulations. These
processes must be capable of emitting VON. Although the version
of the Alternative Proposal which was published at First Notice
included viscose solutions under the definition of miscellaneous
fabricated product manufacturing process, the Agency has now
proposed a separate subpart, Subpart 00, which would apply to
viscose solution processes. Generally, Subpart PP involves the
application of adhesives and coatings to various items. Also,
the process in which plastic foam, scrap or “fluff” from the
manufacture of foam containers
arid
packaging materials are used
to form resin pellets are included under Subpart PP. Subpart PP
also would apply to the storage and handling of formulations as
well as to the use and handling of organic liquids and substances
used for the clean up operations associated with the applicable
processes.
86— 236
11
As a result of negotiations between the Agency, Dow Chemical
USA and the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, the Agency
and IERG proposed a change to the original Alternative
Proposal. The change included removing processes dealing with
the production of insulation board from applicability under
Subpart PP. The Board allowed the Agency to amend its proposal
in this manner and this amendment was reflected in the version of
the Alternative Proposal which was published in the Illinois
Register. This amendment effecitively removes Dow from
regulation by the generic rule.
With regard to adhesives, the Agency states that the VON
content of adhesives varies from 5.9 pounds per gallon, for
spiral tubes used for electric motor components, to zero pounds
per gallon, for an adhesive formulated with exempt compounds used
on foam. Subpart PP would impose a 3.5 pound per gallon limit
for VON content. The Agency asserts that such a limit is “a
reasonable level at which to set a normative limit in a
rule....It is at the lower end of the range for volatile organic
material content for adhesives a general applicability ignoring
the specialized adhesives at zero and 0.5 pounds per gallon.
Setting the normative limit at 3.5 pounds per gallon enables
substantial reductions in organic emissions were feasible from
the level with the adhesives at the upper end of the range.”
(October 29, 1986, R. 396—397). The Agency then points to the
adjusted RACT provision of the rule in order to accommodate
higher VON content adhesives. “A limit of 3.5 pounds per gallon
requires the site—specific demonstration necessary for the
setting of adjusted RACT emission limitation to accompany
continued major uses of higher VOM content adhesives”. (October
29, 1986, R. 397). The Agency also concludes that the 3.5 pounds
per gallon limit is “a fair balance of technical, environmental,
and procedural concerns”. Id. The Agency also comes to a similar
conclusion concerning the regulation of coatings applied to
plastic products. “Adoption of an emission limit of 3.5 pounds
organic emissions per gallon of coating with provisions for
administratively setting an adjusted PACT emission limitation is
a crude but effective way to deal with the category. It balances
technical, environmental, legal, administrative, and practical
concerns to a reasonable end.” (October 29, 1986, R. 409).
The Agency also asserts that an 81 percent reduction in VON
emissions from uncontrolled levels is justified for processes
using the baths of organic solvent in which is dispersed resin,
rubber or other materials. This conclusion is reached from the
observation that there is currently “a prevalence of control
equipment for these operations”. (P.C. #6, p. 19; February 11,
1987, R. 828—829). The Agency states that this fact is “ample
demonstration of the technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness of the proposed generic rule” as applied to resin
these application processes. (P.C. #6, p. 19).
86—237
12
According to the Agency, the coating of leather is a non—CTG
operation which is regulated by at least one other
jurisdiction. Apparently, New Jersey imposes an emission limit
of 5.8 pounds of volatile organic substances per gallon of
coating. At hearing, the Agency stated “background information
on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Action
may also be useful to the extent that it will be relevant to a
determination of an adjusted RACT emission limitation for the
non—complying operation.” (February 11, 1987, R. 842).
As stated earlier, the Agency amended the applicability of
Subpart PP so as to effectively eliminate Dow Chemical USA, a
manufacturer of foam boards, from regulation under Subpart PP.
However, Subpart PP would apply to processes which involve the
use of plastic foam scrap, or “fluff” from the manufacture of
foam containers and packaging material to form resin pellets. It
is clear from the record that this would include the processes
conducted by Mobil Chemical Corporation as it reclaims scrap foam
from its manufacturing process. Specifically, Mobil manufactures
polystyrene foam sheets for food packaging containers including
egg cartons, meat trays, food service disposables, and fast food
sandwich containers. (February 11, 1987, R. 669). The amount of
emissions resulting from the reclaiming process totals 476 tons
per year of VON for Mobil’s Frankfurt plant. (February 11, 1987,
R. 675).
Mobil has also presented estimates that the control of the
fluff bins in the reclaim process through incineration would
generate a cost effectiveness of $3,500 per ton of VON removed.
A similar estimate of $3,600 per ton would result from the use of
a carbon adsorption process. (Exhibit 28A). On the other hand,
the Agency calculates the estimate of cost per ton removed at
$2,?00 (P.C. #6, att. 12). The Agency concludes that catalytic
incineration or high thermal efficiency incineration is
technically feasible and economically reasonable for Mobil’s
process emissions from the fluff bins and reclaim extruders.
(P.C. #6, p. 35).
The Application of Adhesives by Allsteel, Inc.
Representatives of Allsteel, Inc. (Allsteel) testified at
the April 24, 1987 hearing as well as the December 18, 1987 EcIS
hearing. After reviewing Alisteel’s April 24th testimony and
subsequent submissions by Allsteei, the Agency has concluded that
Allsteel has demonstrated that PACT is presently utilized for
almost all of Allsteel’s emission points. Consequently, the
Agency is recommending that adhesive operations as included under
Subpart PP be restricted to non—furniture adhesives. Alisteel is
in the business of manufacturing various types of office
furniture.
Also the Agency recommends that the curing of furniture
adhesives in ovens be subject to Subpart PP to the extent that
86—238
13
such a curing operation emits an excess of 10 tons of VOM per
year. (P.C. ~6, p. 43). The Agency’s rationale behind the 10
ton per year cutoff is as follows: “The Agency has arbitrarily
selected 10 ton/year emissions as the point of demarkation at
this time, where control of an oven curing adhesives is
reasonable. This achieves a result of keeping Allsteel’s
emission point 2 largest curing operations subject to
limitation. This is the emission point that is most amenable to
control with a single control device minimizing interaction with
retrofit constraints and multisource duct work.” (P.C. #6, p.
42).
In response, Allsteel states that it agrees with the
Agency’s position that the generic rule should exclude adhesive
application processes in furniture manufacturing operations.
However, Alisteel disagrees with the Agency concerning the
control of Allsteel’s desk top line curing ovens. Alisteel
claims that it has conducted emission tests on three of its ovens
and discovered that even the largest oven only emits
approximately 11.2 tons/year. This is in contrast to the 27
tons/year figure which was earlier assumed by Alisteel and the
Agency. According to Allsteel, control of that oven would only
result in the reduction of 10.4 tons/year. (December 18, 1987, p.
R. 1037, P.C. #10, p. 3). Allsteel also states that the $5,000
per ton removed estimate, as calculated by the DENR EcIS, is too
low. Allsteel believes that the cost of control of its curing
oven would be higher primarily due to construction problems with
the space constraints found in Allsteel’s plant. (December 18,
1987, R. 1045—1046). Allsteel states that it would have to
install an incinerator weighing between 25,000 to 30,000 pounds
on the plant’s roof. In addition, the incinerator would have to
be located near the center of the building, which would,
according to Allsteel, require further structural improvements in
order to achieve the proper roof support. Allsteel claims that
all these contingencies would greatly increase the cost of the
incinerator. (December 18, 1987, R. 1039
—
1040).
After reviewing Allsteel’s data presented at the EcIS
hearing, the Agency concludes that an installation of an after-
burner outside the building would be too costly to justify the
control of only 24.2 tons/year of Allsteel. (P.C. #15, p. 16).
However, the Agency suggests that the installation of control
equipment within the building if feasible would be the most
economical control option for Allsteel. The Agency also
concludes that the record does not support a finding that there
is insufficient space on the inside of Alisteel’s plant to
install control equipment. The Agency suggests that the stacking
of an incinerator on top of the oven could be feasible for
Allsteel. Allsteel responds in its comments that there is no
room within the plant to install incinerators. (P.C. #19, p.
4). Specifically, Allsteel’s witness testified at hearing that
there was not enough room to install an incinerator directly
above the oven because of the mezzanine floor located directly
86— 239
above the oven. Also, there would not be enough room between the
mezzanine area and the roof, according to Allsteel’s witness.
(December 18, 1987, B. 1055—1056). The witness categorically
stated that there was no way that an afterburner could be
installed within the building (December 18, 1987, R. 1057).
The Agency has proposed to effectively exempt Allsteel from
the requirements of this generic rule except the operations of
the curing ovens on Allsteel’s desk top line. The Agency has
fashioned regulation of these ovens, specifically requesting a 10
ton cutoff so that Allsteel’s curing ovens would be subject to
this rule. In the Agency’s comments after the EcIS hearing, the
Agency takes the position that Allsteel’s curing ovens should be
regulated due to the absence of the showing that it is
technically infeasible or economically unreasonable for Allsteel
to install afterburners inside the plant. The Agency has come to
the conclusion that it is economically unreasonable for Alisteel
to install afterburners outside the plant.
Alisteel is currently running its plant on one shift. It
claims that the 11.2 tons per year emission level is typical at
such a level of operation. (December 18, 1987, B. 1068—1069).
Alisteel indicated that if production levels increase, it would
add more equipment rather than utilize a second and third shift.
Id.
The Board is reluctant to exempt Allsteel completely from
the generic rule requirements as requested by Allsteel. Although
Allsteel’s emissions are presently relatively small, an increase
in Allsteel’s production could significantly increase its yearly
emission levels. The Agency has proposed a 10—ton or less
exemption which would apply to Allsteel’s curing ovens.
Acco~rdingto the Agency, the sole purpose behind this provision
is to include Allsteel’s largest curing oven emission source
under the generic rule’s limitations. The issue then becomes
whether an 81 percent reduction is PACT for this source. The
determination of PACT for Allsteel’s curing oven processes
involves site—specific considerations unique to Allsteel. The
Board finds that if Ailsteei cannot reasonably comply with the
limitation of the generic rifle, Alisteel should utilize the
adjusted RACT provision. This procedure would allow the Board to
extensively consider Allsteei’s particular situation. Given the
current state of the record before the Board, the Board is unable
to make such a site—specific examination of Allsteel’s curing
oven process in this proceeding. However, the Board agrees with
the Agency that furniture curing processes emitting less than 10
tons per year should be exempt from the rule.
Subpart QQ
——
Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Processes
This Subpart regulates the manufacturing processes which
compound various materials and are also capable of emitting
VOM. Also included is the regulation of the storage and handling
8~—2/4f)
15
of various formulations associated with the process as well as
the use and handling of organic liquids and other substances for
the clean—up operations associated with the processes. These
processes include the formulation or manufacture of caulks,
sealant, concrete additives, adhesives, and viscose solutions
which will be discussed later. Also, this Subpart would regulate
the manufacture of friction composite materials which utilize
formulations containing rubber, resins, fibers and fillers in
which an organic solvent is a minor component.
The Agency states that the regulation of the manufacturing
of adhesives is justified for a number of reasons. Such a
manufacturing operation can be considered under the broader
category of processing chemicals and vessels. Such a category of
manufacturing operations is regulated by other state and local
authorities outside of Illinois. Specifically such regulations
apply to the manufacture of coatings, paints, and polymer
resins. Also the Agency claims that some sources already have
control devices, which would be required under the generic rule,
that might render these sources already in compliance with the
Agency’s proposal. (October 29, 1986, R. 388—389; February 11,
1987, R. 824).
At hearing, the Agency also explained its justification for
the imposition of controls on the manufacture of composite
friction material. Such material is generally made by
impregnating felt paper with a solution of resin and organic
solvent. The Agency specifically estimates that the cost of
afterburners on existing lines is in the range of $1,000 per ton
removed, and for newer lines the cost is approximately $250 per
ton removed. (October 29, 1986, B. 392—393) (February 11, 1987,
R. 828—829).
In its First Notice comments, the Agency is also
recommending that the exemption level per emission source for
Subpart QQ be raised to 2.5 tons per year rather than one ton per
year. The Agency claims that such a change would assure that
RACT would be implemented for the manufacture of adhesive and
related products. (P.C. #6, p. 15).
Subpart BR
——
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Processes
Subpart BR would regulate manufacturing processes capable of
emitting volatile organic materials which produce by chemical
reaction various organic compounds or mixtures of such organic
compounds. Also regulated by this Subpart would be the storage
and handling of formulations associated with these various
processes and the use and handling of organic liquids and other
substances for the clean up operations associated with these
processes. The Agency asserts that the uncontrolled emissions,
excluding the de minimus exemptions provided by this Subpart,
amount to approximately 385 tons/year. Reductions achieved by
86—241
16
this proposed Subpart would range from 312 to 365 tons per year,
according to the Agency. (P.C. #6, p. 7—8). The Agency claims
that control of emissions from these processes can be realized in
a technically feasible and economically reasonable way.
Specifically, the Agency states that control of these sources can
either be accomplished by a condenser or for ethyl petroleum
additives, the use of smokeless flares. (Exhibt 57, p. 3—5). The
cost of using smokeless flares as controls range from
approximately $25 to $291 per ton removed. (Exhibit 57, p. 6—12,
Appendix A, Table 2A). As for condensors, the cost effectiveness
ranges from a savings of $445 per ton to a cost of $1170 per ton
reduced. (Exhibit 57, p. 6—12, Appendix A, Table 2A). The Agency
also states that California and Wisconsin have also promulgated
rules for resin and polymer manufacturing facilities. (P.C. #6,
p. 7; October 29, 1987, B. 284—287, Exhibits 6(b) and 6(c)).
Control of Sources at Stepan Chemical Company
In its First Notice comments, Stepan stated that absent a
low vapor cutoff and a larger total emissions allowance, Stepan
would be required to implement very costly controls upon its
sources. Specifically, Stepan would like that the exemption
provision of Proposed Section 2l5.960(d)(l) be expanded to allow
for the small source exemptions to add up to 25 tons per year.
The current proposal provides for small source exemptions
(sources which emit less than 1 ton per year) to a total of 5
tons per year. Stepan also proposes that VON with vapor
pressures of less than 0.02 PSIA be exempt from regulations.
The first time that Stepan testified at the hearings in this
matter was on the last day of the EcIS hearings, December 18,
1987. At that point, the Agency objected to Stepan’s testimony
on the grounds that the information Stepan was supplying was
coming in too late in the rulemaking process. In addition, the
Agency objected to Stepan’s testimony in that the nature of the
testimony was conclusory and that the testimony did riot supply
Specifics with regard to the operations and emissions of Stepan.
(December 18, 1987, R. 1072—1073). The Agency concluded that
even if this information had been supplied by Stepan at the time
of the hearing, the Agency would not have enough time in this
rulemaking process to review the substance of Stepan’s
assertions. (December 18, 1987, B. 1076).
Stepan responded by stating that it had prefiled its
testimony according to the Hearing Officer’s Order and that the
Agency was given plenty of opportunity to request any additional
information prior to the EcIS hearing. The Hearing Officer
allowed Stepan to present its testimony since it had complied
with the Hearing Officer Order requesting the prefiling of
testimony. (December 18, 1987, R. 1075).
Stepan is “a manufacturer of basic and intermediate
chemicals used primarily in the soap and detergent industry.”
86— 242
17
(December 18, 1987, B. 1079). In its testimony, Stepan suggests
that it has many smaller sources which would have to be regulated
under the proposed rule and that such regulation of these sources
would prove technically infeasible and economically unreasonable.
(December 18, 1987, R. 1080). Stepan also questioned the
Agency’s assertion that condensors would provide a 95 percent
control efficiency. Stepan stated that such control efficiency
would amount to more or less 50 percent. (December 18, 1987,
B.
1082). Stepan also states that it believes that approximately 30
sources
-—
many of which emit under 1 ton per year of VON would
be subject to the requirements of Subpart BR. (December 18, 1987,
R. 1080). Stepan estimates that control using a condensor for
its largest sources would amount to $8,700 per ton. Other
sources which emit more than 1 ton per year could have a control
cost effectiveness of up to $20,000 per ton.
A Stepan witness at hearing stated that he first really
became aware of the generic proposal at about the time of the
last merit hearing which was held on April 24, 1987. He states
that at that point he did not have enough time to prepare
testimony for the hearing on April 24th. (December 18, 1987, p.
1096).
In general, the Board is in agreement with the position of
the Agency concerning the timing of the submission of Stepan’s
materials. Such information should have been submitted during
the merit hearing process. Stepan claims that it was not aware
the Agency’s proposal until approximately the last merit hearing,
which was held on April 24, 1987. However, as pointed out by the
Board’s First Notice Opinion, any person could have followed the
procedure prescribed by the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act
and requested a merit hearing after the August 28, 1987 First
Notice publication of the Agency’s Alternative Proposal in the
Illinois Register. Stepan did not do so but rather chose to
testify at the EcIS hearing and submit the majority of its
substantive materials in its comments following the EcIS
hearing. The Board notes that it is required under Section 27(b)
of the Act to hold hearings on an EcIS filed by the Department of
Energy and Natural Resources. In general, it is a policy of the
Board to limit the scope of those hearings to commenting upon the
EcIS generated by DENR. Substantive positions by the regulated
community concerning the rule, in general, should be introduced
during the merit hearing process
——
not during the EcIS
hearings. The Board recognizes that often issues do overlap into
the area of economics covered, or perhaps not covered, by the
EcIS which could properly be considered merit issues.
Notwithstanding this fact, the Board views Stepan’s posture ifl
this proceeding as being somewhat untimely.
Hearings in this matter have been going on since October of
1986. The Board has considered that the RACT rules must be
promulgated as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, the
Board is faced with having to determine an ending point for when
86—243
18
information can be introduced into the record. The Board has
allowed Stepari to introduce its information; however, it is
obvious that the information coming in at this point in the
rulemaking process does not allow the Board or other interested
persons a significant opportunity to review and scrutinize the
substantive positions of Stepan. As a result, the Board believes
that Stepan should make its case by utilizing the adjusted RACT
provision as provided by this rule. This will allow Stepan to
present all the necessary information for Board scrutiny.
Consequently, the Board will not modify Subpart BR as requested
by Stepan in its First Notice comments, testimony, and EcIS
hearing comments.
Proposal by the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
On October 23, 1987, the Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group (IERG) filed a Motion for Leave to File Its Comments
Instanter. That motion is hereby granted. IERG specifically
states in their comments that many of the issues of concern to
IERG members were addressed in the Alternative Proposal filed by
the Agency. However, according to IERG, the remaining issues of
concern are contained in IERG’scomments. In general, IERG
believes that the Alternative Proposal is a substantial
improvement in the regulatory approach to the control of non—CTG
sources when compared to the proposal originally filed by the
Agency. IERG also states that many of its own suggestions were
incorporated by the Agency in this Alternative Proposal. (P.C.
#11, p. 2—3).
Sources Counted for the 100—Ton Per Year Base Line
IERG’s first major recommendation is that sources counted
toward the applicability baseline of 100 ton or more of
uncontrolled emissions should include only those sources which
would be regulated by the proposed Subparts. As the proposal
Stands now, the Agency is recommending that sources not already
subject to CTG based rules, whether regulated by the new subparts
Or not, should be counted toward the 100 ton base—line.
Also, IERG proposes that sources which are currently
Controlled under Section 215.302 and 215.304 of Subpart K should
be exempted from the count to 100 tons. IERG states that Subpart
F and Subpart N regulations, which are exempt from the 100 ton
count, are not based on a CTG and that Subpart B regulations are
based merely on a draft CTG. IERG’s conclusion regarding these
subparts is based upon testimony by an Agency witness. (April 23,
1987, B. 894—896). IERG then reasons that since there are some
exemptions of sources (from the counting to the 100 ton base-
line) due to the sources being subject to regulations not based
on CTG’s, then the inclusion of an exemption for Sections 215.302
and 215.304 Subpart K is reasonable. (P.C. #11, p. 5). However,
the Agency does not agree.
86— 244
19
The same Agency witness suggested at hearing that such an
inclusion might further weaken approvability of the generic rule
by the USEPA, particularly because Subpart K is also not based on
a CTG. (April 23, 1987, B. 896—897). IERG generally is stating
that there is no precedent to count (toward the 100 ton base-
line) source emissions from sources which are not subject to the
proposed limitations. The Agency counters by stating that such a
counting is consistent with the regulatory approach of Part 203
and 40 C.F.R. 52.21, which identifies a source as an entire plant
or modification of a plant. (P.C. #6, p. 51). The Agency also
states that guidance from USEPA distinguishes between CTG and
non—CTG operations at a plant and that applicability is based
upon non—CTG emissions from the plant. (P.C. #6, p. 52). In
addition, the Agency believes that its treatment of sources
subject to Subpart K which would be counted toward the 100 ton
base line, is more consistent than IERG’s proposal which would
exempt only certain sources which have implemented controls under
Sections 215.302 and 215.304. (P.C. #6, p. 53—54). In summary,
the Agency asserts that the emission limits imposed by the
generic rule would reflect what is technically feasible or
economically reasonable. This conclusion holds irrespective of
whether certain sources are counted toward the general 100 ton
applicability threshold. Also, the Agency states that there are
precedents for a plant—wide applicability determination. (P.C.
#6, p. 51—52).
In its comments, the Agency does not address the fact that
there are certain exemptions from the counting of the 100 ton
base—line which involve sources that would be subject to rules
that are not based on CTG’s. However, testimony indicates that
that aspect is a “weak point in the rules as is it is terms of
USEPA approval.” (April 23, 1987, R. 896). However, the Agency
did state that Subpart N is a distinguishable situation since
there are no major vegetable oil processing plants in any non—
attainment area. Also, Subpart F, which would regulate the
coating of wood furniture, was considered distinguishable
because; according to the Agency witness, it would be unlikely
that there would be other major non—CTG emissions also at such a
facility. (April 23, 1987, B. 897—898).
IERG asserts that “the Board may determine the appropriate
definition for source” for the purpose of this rule, as it
ap~1iesto the Clean Air Act requirement of RACT for “existing
major stationary sources.” (P.C. #11, p. 5). In general, the
Board is persuaded by the Agency’s position that sources not
subject to the proposed limitations of each Subpart should be
included in the count toward the 100—ton applicability base
line. The rule clearly distinguishes between sources that are
counted toward the 100 ton baseline and sources whose emissiOnS
must be limited by the proposed generic rule (which are also
counted). The regulation of the specific sources subject to the
rule must meet the RACT standard.
86—245
20
The Board finds that it is reasonable to come to the
conclusion that plant—wide sources including those which are not
regulated by a particular Subpart can be considered in the
determination as to whether a plant would be a major VON
emitter. The Agency has even included in its proposal the
exemption, from the counting toward the 100 ton baseline, of
sources regulated by various other non—CTG Subparts. The
inclusion of these specific exemptions moves the baseline
counting toward the direction desired by IERG (removal from the
baseline count sources which are not regulated by the rule),
although it weakens the approvability of the rule. The Board is
reluctant to further jeopardize the rule’s USEPA approvability by
expanding the exemptions with another non—CTG based Subpart. In
general, though, the exempted Subparts are Subparts which have
been based upon CTG rules.
The Agency intends that if a source could be regulated by
one of the Subparts of the generic rules as well as another
Subpart that is not based on a CTG, such as Subpart K or Subpart
C, then the Subpart with the more stringent control requirements
would regulate that source. (P.C. #6, p. 61).
Finally, the Agency proposed alternate language in an
attempt to clarify applicability of Subparts PP, QQ, and BR.
(P.C. #6, p. 62—64). The Board has modified that alternate
language. However, the list of exempted Subparts shall remain in
the text of the Sections rather than being set forth in an
Appendix. The Board has added Subpart V to the list. This is
consistent with the Agency’s desire that the list be updated.
(P.C. #6, p. 61). Subpart V is a CTG—based Subpart which became
effective on December 14, 1987. Stepan requests that Subpart V
be included with the other exempted Subparts. (P.C. #20, p. 3).
Geographic Coverage of the Proposed Rule
Next, IERG contends that the proposed rule should not be
applicable to existing sources in DuPage, Kane, Mcflenry, and Will
Counties. (P.C. #11, p. 10). The Board notes that Allsteel and
Stepan have made similar requests. (P.C. #19, p. 9; P.C. #20, p.
13). IERG asserts that the Clean Air Act requires that states
adopt provisions for implementation of PACT on major sources in
non—attainment areas. IERG claims that McHenry and Will Counties
are designated attainment, therefore, there is no legal
requirement to require PACT on facilities located in this
Counties. (P.C. #11, p~ 10). Although IERG acknowledges the
position of the USEPA, Region Five, as expressed by the Rothblatt
Letter, Exhibit 34, IERG states that the letter is merely a USEPA
policy position and is not indication of what USEPA can legally
mandate. IERG concludes that USEPA internal policy should not
carry the same weight as the applicable statute and regulations.
(P.C. #11, p. 11—12).
86— 246
21
IERG also relies on the testimony of Mr. Erwin Kauper for
its conclusion regarding the geographic scope of applicability.
The Board stands by its earlier expressed view of the Kauper
testimony, as enunciated in R86—39 on July 16, 1987. The Kauper
testimony had been incorporated into
the R86—39 record. The
relevant analysis of the Kauper testimony from B86—39 follows:
As noted above, the geographic coverage has
been questioned in this proceeding.
The only
evidence
presented
in opposition
to the
Agency’s proposal is contained in the Kauper
material which has been incorporated by
reference.
Mr. Kauper concludes:
1. That the EKMA model used to demonstrate
approvability
of
SIP
submissions
is
flawed;
2. That urban traffic
sources rather than
point sources are responsible
for ozone
exceedances; and
3. That proper trajectory analysis generally
rules
out
the
significance
of point
sources in Will, Kane, Mcflenry and DuPage
counties
as
contributors
to
ozone
exceedances.
(R. 86—19, April 24, 1987, B. 1045—1048
and 1059).
While the Board finds Mr. Kauper’s analysis
to be interesting, the Board is not persuaded
of the validity
of his conclusions.
Mr.
Kau~er bases
his
conclusions
on
the
trajectory
analysis.
A
trajectory
is
constructed
by identifying
a specific
air
parcel
(i.e.
one
containing
an
ozone
concentration
in excess of the NAAQS for
Ozone) and tracing the locations of the air
parcel backward in time using hourly wind
data.
Trajectory analysis attempts to
determine the source of the emissions that
ultimately
led to the exceedances.
Twenty—
nine (29) separate trajectories were
presented by Mr. Kauper showing the paths
taken by the air parcels that led to ozone
violations
in Illinois
and Wisconsin on 22
days during the 1985 and 1986 ozone
Seasons.
These trajectories
do tend to pass
through the Chicago metropolitan area.
They
do not, however, tend to pass through the
Chicago urban area during times when heavy
traffic would be expected.
86—247
22
Assuming the urban area to be defined on the
trajectory maps by the area bounded by
Evanston, Des Plaines, ORD (O’Hare), Cicero,
Midway, SW Pump, Calumet City and the lake,
and assuming that heavy traffic would not be
expected prior to 5:30 a.m. CST, only 8 of
the 29 trajectories are indicated to have
passed through the urban area at relevant
times.
On the other hand, at least 15 of the
air parcels were over Lake Michigan during
the time period after 5:30 a.m. On this
simplistic basis, it appears more reasonable
to assume that the problem stems from Lake
Michigan emissions rather than urban
traffic.
That, of course, is not the case,
however, and
it appears most reasonable to
hypothesize that the ozone precursors in most
of the cited cases were injected into the
atmosphere at some point prior to the last
plotted point of most of the trajectories.
Thus, the data presented is of limited value
in determining the sources of the ozone
exceedances studies, and is of even more
limited value with respect to the stated
generalized conclusions. Furthermore, Mr.
Kauper indicated that short of extending a
complete analysis farther back in time, the
best guess as to the trajectories prior to
the last plotted points would be based upon a
presumed movement similar to that indicated
by the last few plotted points. (id. at
1074). If that is done, at least 20 of the
29 trajectories would be expected to pass
near, or through, Will County.
If is
difficult to understand, then, how the Board
could be expected to conclude that Will
County sources are not contributing to these
Ozone violations. Mr. Kauper admitted that
he was not familiar with the location of
stationary sources in the Chicago area and
that he simply assumed, based upon his
knowledge of other cities, that the Chicago
urban area would be dominated by mobile
sources. (id. at 1083). Mr. Kauper further
admitted that there is some uncertainty
involved in plotting air parcel trajectories,
particularly over the lake where there are no
wind velocity measurements. (id. at 1075—
1079).
One such uncertainty is the
presumption that wind speed increases by 50
when the air parcel moves offshore due to the
reduction in surface friction. (id. at 1079—
86—248
23
1080). Studies over oceans have shown a 35
factor. (id. at 1080). Over the distances
involved, this difference could be
significant, since the uncertainties could be
additive.
The Board simply cannot conclude that Mr.
Kauper’s data supports his conclusion
regarding ozone exceedances being caused by
Chicago urban mobile sources. While the
Board is inclined to agree that the EKMA
model may have shortcomings as a predictor of
ozone exceedances near Lake Michigan and that
a substantial majority of the studied
exceedances are impacted by lake effect
winds, insufficient information has been
provided to demonstrate that Will County does
not contribute to those exceedances even
assuming the accuracy of the plotted
trajectories. (B. 86—39, slip. op. at 4—5,
July 16, 1987).
Also, the Board has admitted as Exhibits 58 and 59 to this
proceeding data for ambient air levels concerning ozone. It is
interesting to note that several of the 1987 exceedances occur in
counties that are presently classified as attainment for ozone,
namely Will, Mdllenry, and Peoria.
In response to IERG’s recommendations, the Agency points to
the Board to Attachment #20 of P.C. #6. Attachment 20 is a
letter dated August 11, 1987 from Stephen Rothblatt, Chief of the
Air and Radiation Branch of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, to Michael J. Hayes, Manager of the Division
of Air Pollution Control for the Agency. In that letter, Mr.
Rothblatt analyzes Mr. Kauper’s testimony and states similar
conclusions similar to that which the Board reached in R86—39.
Also with regards to the use of EKMA as a model, Mr. Rothblatt
concludes:
Unless and until a better technique is
demonstrated (and in the absence of the data
base necessary for more sophisticated
models), iJSEPA will continue to recommend the
use of EKMA for estimating emission
reductions needed to attain the ozone
standard. (P.C. #6, Attachment 20).
In conclusion, the Board is not persuaded by IERG that it
should deviate from its earlier position with regard to the
county issue. IERG had earlier raised this issue in the context
of a motion which the Board rejected in its First Notice Opinion
and Order. The rationale adopted by the Board in disposing of
this motion is set forth above in this Opinion.
86—249
Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation
IERG first suggests that Proposed Section 215.260 should be
altered to make it clear that sources could petition for an
adjusted RACT prior to the effective date of the regulation.
It
is the Board’s position that an Adjusted RACT petition should be
filed after the effective date of Subpart I.
Also, IERG requests that that same Section be altered to
provide a 120 day period, after the time an emission source meets
the applicability criteria, in which an emission source may
petition for an adjusted RACT limitation. The original proposal
provides that a petition must be filed at the time an emission
source meets the applicability criteria. IERG claims that such a
change is necessary to allow an owner or operator of an emission
source reasonable time to file the proper petition for an
adjusted PACT. IERG states that a plant’s emissions could
increase, which would trigger applicability, by changes in hours
of operation and of production rates. Such changes according to
IERG could take place without any plant construction or
modi fic at i on.
The Agenc~~states that such a change in operation would be
deliberate and capable of being anticipated. Consequently, the
Agency believes that an owner or operator would be able prior to
actually being subject :o the rule. (P.C. #6, p. 58).
In principle, the t~oardagrees with IERG’s position;
however, the 120 day tine frame is too excessive. As a result,
the Board will allow 60 days in which to file a petition for an
adjusted RACT once a source becomes subject to the rule. Section
2l5.~6O has been altered accordingly.
Next, IEPG proposes that Section 215.26l(c)(3) should be
amended in order to delete the requirement that the petition
contain an evaluation of effects of the cost of achieving
emissioris reductions in relation to “the cost of the product or
services provided by the emission source.” Specifically, IERG
objects to the fact that an owner/operator would have to supply
the cost of the product or services. IERG claims that such
information is “extremely confidential” and, therefore, is “not
appropriate to require the inclusion of such data in a company’s
demonstration of economic reasonableness for an adjusted RACT
emissions limitation.” (P.C. #11, p. 19). The Board understands
IERG’s position; however, it also finds value in requiring a
discussion of the impact of the cost of achieving emissions
reductions. As a result, the Board will alter Section
215.26l(c)(3i to read as follows:
3) An evaluation of the effects of the cost
of achieving emissions reduction in
relatiofl to:
86—250
25
A) The annualized capital and operating
budgets of the emission source over
the most recent five year period;
B) Such other costs and economic
information as the petitioner
believes may assist the Board in
reaching a decision.
Such a change would allow an owner or operator to refrain from
disclosing absolute costs, yet, would give the Board an
opportunity to consider other types of cost information. The
Board notes, however, that burden of proof in an Adjusted RACT
proceeding is on the petitioner.
The Board has also added subsection(c)(4) which allows for
the introduction of other factors that may be useful for the
Board to consider in making its Adjusted RACT determinations.
The additional factors of subsections(c)(4)(A) through (c)(4)(H)
are taken from the USEPA public comment (P.C. #13; see also P.C.
#15, Attachment 16) which sets forth a list of factors, other
than cost effectiveness, which “must be considered in
establishing RACT.” The Board will view such conditions as
mitigating factors in adjusted RACT proceedings. They do not
supercede or carry equal weight with the established technical
and economic considerations. In addition, the Board has
included, as subsection(c)(4)(H), the “potential for operational
modifications.” This factor enables the Board to consider the
role of plant operational changes in the achievement of
compliance or reducing emissions as part of an adjusted RACT.
Finally, with regard to the adjusted RACT provision, IERG
requests that Section 215.264 be amended so as to eliminate the
requirement that the Board “shall require compliance no later
than December 31, 1987.” Instead, IERG would rather have the
language read:
b) shall require compliance by a date certain as established
by the Board for existing emission sources or prior to
the operation of a new emission source.
In li9ht of the fact that the Agency is now proposing a
compliance date for the requirements of Subparts AA, PP, QQ and
BR of April 1, 1989, the Board finds that it is reasonable to
alter Section 215.264(b) as requested by IERG.
Economic Impact Study
On t1ovember 2, 1987, the Department of Energy & Natural
Resources (DENR) filed an Economic Impact Study (EcIS) concerning
the various proposals filed in this matter. Along with the EcIS,
DENR submitted a Concurring Opinion by the Economic Technical
86—251
26
Advisory Committee. Pursuant to Section 27(b) of the Act, the
Board held hearings to consider this EcIS on December 14, 1987,
in Springfield, and on December 18, 1987, in Chicago. At those
hearings, the Board received testimony from Ms. Mary Goodkind and
Mr. Russ Wallauer of Impell Corporation. Impell Corporation was
the consultant contracted by DENR to prepare the
EcIS. Also, the
Board received testimony from representatives of Viskase
Corporation, Allsteel, and Stepan.
According to the EcIS, the Agency’s Alternative Proposal
would reduce VOM emissions by 1715 tons per year. (EcIS, p.
46). The EcIS also reports the results of a modeling study which
attempts to estimate the overall increase in initial capital and
annual operating costs which would be incurred by the Agency’s
Alternative Proposal.
The model’s results indicate a total
Chicago metropolitan area increase in initial capital
expenditures of $10,828,100 and a total increase in annual
operating costs of $4,855,000. Capital and operating
expenditures in the East St. Louis area would be small, according
to the EcIS. These figures attempt to reflect the fact that
“capital expenses incurred by manufacturers would result in an
increased demand for industries supplying control equipment.”
(EcIS, p. 69).
In general, the EcIS concludes:
Comparison of costs and benefits for the
proposed rules generic
rule
is difficult
because cost of compliance can be quantified
with much greater certainty than the benefits
that would result.
Considering each PACT
proposal individually, incremental benefits
are small. However, the total set of RACT
rules plus other measures for control of VOM
precursors,
such as mobile source controls,
would have significant benefits in improving
ambient air quality.
In addition, progress
toward attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Ozone would help to
reduce the probability of sanctions on
federal funding and would remove one set of
requirements for lifting of the construction
moratorium in non—attainment areas.
(December 14, 1987, R. 872)
Impell estimates that compliance with the Alternative
Proposal would result in an annual VOM emission reduction of 1527
tons. (December 14, 1987 B. 868). According to Impell, most of
the projected emission reductions
would take place in the Chicago
metropolitan area.
Impell also states that the reduced emissions
equate to about 0.5 percent of the total 1986 VOM emissions from
all sources in the Chicago area.
Also, Impell concludes that
86—252
27
these reductions would provide a 0.56 percent reduction of the
ozone concentration in the ambient air of the Chicagoland area.
(December 14, 1987, B. 870; EcIS p. 49).
Impell’s witness also
testified that there would be “no discernible effect on the air
quality” for the St. Louis area. (December 14, 1987, R. 870).
With regard to human health benefits, the Impell witness
testified that “although some reduction and discomfort may be
theorized for sensitive individuals effects on health would be
minor and difficult to quantify for the small change in ozone
levels predicted.” (December 14, 1987, B. 871).
Impell attempted to assess and quantify the benefits that
would result from the Agency’s Alternative Proposal.
In seeking
to explain the difficulty in quantifying human health benefits in
some sort of monetary way, the Impell witness referred the Board
to page 56 of the EcIS as the “appropriate statement” concerning
health benefits. (December 14, 1987, R. 904). That passage of
the EcIS states:
The reduction achieved by these rules, taken
by themselves, is not likely to be
discernible
against the background of other
pollutants and irritants.
Nevertheless,
although
changes in health
effect
for an
individual would be toosmall to quantify, it
can at least be theoretically postulated that
some benefits
would accrue
to the total
exposed population.
Studies have shown that
some individuals
respond more strongly
to
ozone
exposures;
these
individuals
would
benefit most from reduced ozone levels.
Another group that would benefit
would be
those who tend to exercise heavily during the
summer ozone season.
Even a slight reduction
in peak ozone levels may increase the comfort
of these individuals. In general, however,
methods for valuation of health and comfort
are not sufficiently developed or sensitive
enough to allow assignment
of a monetary
value to the benefits predicted.
EcIS, p. 56
When discussing the effects of ozone on humans, the EcIS
states “two types of at risk groups have been identified:
those
with pre—existing respiratory disease and those healthy
individuals who exhibit unusual sensitivity
to ozone. This group
known as responders, represents the upper 5 to 20 percent of the
ozone response distribution.”
(EcIS, p. 54).
The EcIS summary mentions that ozone related symptoms
include throat dryness, pain with inhalation, headache and nausea
and concludes that:
86—253
28
Even a very small change in peak ozone levels
has potential benefits from reducing the
likelihood of such symptoms. The monetary
value of such a benefit is, however, too
small to quantify.
EcIS, p. 73
When questioned about quantifying the benefit of relieving
such symptoms by reducing ozone levels, the Impell witness
replied:
Again, we’re talking about things that could
be signficant, I mean reduction of headache
in a large number of people is certainly an
important benefit, but how you assign a
dollar
value
to
it
with
any amount
of
certainty is very difficult.
B. p. 895
When asked further about the quantification of health
benefits, Impell’s witness responded:
It’s difficult to measure, very difficult to
quantify, but we need to acknowledge that the
potential is there. Some literature studies
have demonstrated that reduction in ozone can
have significant economic benefits and
improvement in health and reduce damage. We
know that, but again, no matter how desirable
it would be to be able to quantify it in this
case, I don’t feel that it is advisable for a
contractor to over—reach our current level of
our capability to make such an assignment.
(December 14, 1987, R. 901).
In response to inquiries by Board Member Marlin, Impell
submitted at the second EcIS hearing exhibit 14 which attempted
to quantify some health benefits which could be gained by the
reduction of ambient air ozone concentration. Impell was asked
to quantify the dollar benefit associated with the comfort level
of “responders” improving to the point that less pain medication
was purchased and less productive time was lost due to ozone
levels. Specifically, Impell was requested to look at levels of
the Chicago
area population which could be considered to be
“ozone responders.” It was made clear that this information
would be for illustration
only since it would not have a high
degree of scientific accuracy.
Impell used a 1984 Chicago area
population of 7,215,000. Since 5
—
20 percent of the population
could be
classified as responders, Impell was able to estimate
86— 254
29
some monetary benefit realized by this fraction of the general
population if even some small relief from symptoms occurred due
to lower ozone levels.
Impell first calculated the amount of money saved through
regaining of productivity which would otherwise be lost due to
physical discomfort from higher ozone levels. Impell based a
value of 1 hour of productivity to be worth $9.09
——
this is
taken from a base compensation of $15,000 per year which includes
wages and benefits. The table below, for example, shows that if
15 percent of the population responds to ozone and 60 percent of
that number experiences relief, the dollar value associated with
each such person regaining one hour of productivity would be
$5,900,344. Regaining six hours per year would produce an annual
benefit of over $35 million. Similar data points were developed
for a whole range of different percentages of responders and
those gaining relief. A portion of the figures derived by Impell
is listed below for a number of assumptions:
Value of
Responders Population Value of
Value of
6 Hours
Population Who
Who
1—hour Per
2 Hours Per Per Year
Who Are
Experie~ce Experience Year Regained Year Regained Regained
Responders Relief
Relief
Productivity Productivity Productivity
5
60
3.00
$1,966,781
$ 3,933,563 $11,800,687
60
6.00
$3,933,563
$
7,867,125
$23,601,375
15
60
9.00
$5,900,344
$11,800,588
$35,402,063
20
60
12.00
$7,867,125
$15,734,250
$47,202,750
Impel also has estimated the amount of money saved due to
responders experiencing relief from headaches which would
otherwise occur at elevated ozone concentrations. Such cost
estimates were quantified at an average cost of a single tablet
of pain reliever equalling l9’~. Once again, Impell used a 1984
Chicago area population of 7,215,000. The table below shows that
if 20 percent of the population gains relief to the extent that
one dose of headache remedy per year is foregone, the annual
benefit would be over $500,000. Some of the figures derived by
Impell are presented below:
8 6—255
30
Savings
Savings
Savings
Responders Population Due to
Due to
Due to One
Population Who
Who
One Less One Less Less Small
Who Are
Experie~ce
Experience
Tablet of
Dose of
Bottle of
Responders Relief
Relief
Medication Medication Medication
5
100
5.00
$
68,543 $137,085 $ 959,595
10
100
10.00
$137,085 $274,170 $1,919,190
15
100
15.00
$205,628 $411,255 $2,878,785
20
100
20.00
$274,170 $548,340 $3,838,380
Even though these cost estimates are not based upon any sort
of experimental results or formal studies, it is apparent that
significant health benefits can be realized even if only a small
fraction of the population experiences some relief due to ozone
reduction. While this analysis is interesting, it can be given
little weight in this proceeding. The Board does, however, give
considerable weight to Impell’s conclusion that slight reductions
in ozone level can increase the comfort level of
significant
numbers of people.
At the EcIS hearing, an Impell witness also testified that
“situdies of improvements in crop yields with reduced ozone
concentrations indicate that the estimated reduction could result
in an improvement of profits for Illinois farmers of about
$700,000. This would reflect the increase in profits for farms
located in the applicable counties under the rule near the
Chicagoland area (Cook, DuPage, Will, Kane, Lake, and Mdllenry
counties).” (EcIS p. 60—62).
Also in response to a question by Board Member Marlin,
Impell introduced as a part of EcIS Exhibit 14, further cost
estimates as to increased profits due to ozone concentration
reductions from the Alternative Proposal. These various cost
estimates reflect differing prices in crops covering the years
1970
—
1986. Impell’s original figure of a $700,000 increase in
profits was based on crop prices for 1985. Similarly, Impell has
expressed the increased profit for the years 1970—1986 in 1985
dollars. Over this sixteen—year time frame,
the largest amount
of increased profits, due to an ozone concentration reduction,
would have been $1,792,315 which corresponds to the crop prices
of 1974. The smallest amount of increased profits for that same
time period would have been $567,498 (1985 dollars)
which
corresponds to 1986 prices. (EcIS Exhibit #14).
‘~ Impell states that it made no determination as to estimate what
percent of responders would actually attain relief. However,
various assumptions were utilized to calculate the amount of
money saved. (December 18, 1987, R. 1111).
86—2 56
31
The Board understands that Impell has assumed that the
amount of ozone reduction realized by the proposed generic rule
would be felt in an equal manner across Cook, DuPage, Will, Kane,
Lake, and McHenry counties. Even after considering price
fluctuations of crops, which occur from year to year, Inipell’s
figures suggest that farmers would realize a considerable
increase in profits if the generic rules were promulgated.
The EcIS also addresses the impact upon the natural
environment from the reduction of the ozone concentration in the
ambient air. “In addition to causing damage to agricultural
crops, ozone may damage or stress natural vegetation
ecosystems. The effects of ozone alone are more difficult to
quantify in the natural environment; however, significant effects
have been measured in some natural vegetation species from ozone
exposure.” (EcIS, p. 62).
At hearing, Impell’s witness stated that “damage
functions
for effects on materials indicated potential savings of about
$100,000 for the Chicago area population. However, the
reliability of the methods
of calculation is uncertain.”
(December 12, 1987, R. 871). This annual savings would be
achieved through reduced damage to materials such as textiles and
paints within the 6—county Chicago, urban area. (EcIS, p. 66).
Impell has also addressed the issue of Illinois’ non—
attainment status in relation to the promulgation of this generic
rule:
USEPA has proposed a finding, that the State
has failed to demonstrate reasonable, further
progress towards attainment of the ozone air
quality standard.
This finding would result
in a continuation of a moratorium on
construction
of new major VOM sources.
The
USEPA may also impose sanctions
that would
restrict federal highway and sewage treatment
funds. The loss in aid could reach over
$100,000,000 while continuation of the
construction moratorium would have additional
adverse effects on industrial
development in
an affected area. The failure of the State
to demonstrate that reasonable further
progress
could also lead to the USEPA to
impose its own air quality regulations, which
may be more restrictive than those currently
proposed.
(December 14, 1987, R. 871—872)
Impell also testified that one federal sanction which should
be included in the above list is the withholding of federal funds
from Illinois’
air pollution control program. (December 14, 1987,
86—257
32
R. 879). Impell’s witness agreed that if the continuation of a
construction moratorium as well as the discontinuation of grants
to the state air pollution program could be quantified, then
there would be an increased benefit to the State due to the
promulgation of this rule. (December 14, 1987, R. 882—883).
As a part of comments to the EcIS hearings, DENR supplied
the Board with updated estimates as to the impact on jobs if the
Agency’s Alternative Proposal were adopted. The model used to
generate these new estimates was not available at the time of the
preparation of the EcIS. Consequently, the estimates with regard
to job impact in the EcIS are different from those submitted by
DENR in its comments. According to the model used by the EcIS,
the loss of jobs between 1988 and 1992 if the Agency’s
Alternative Proposal were adopted, would amount to 318 jobs.
(EcIS, p. 71). According to the new model used by DENR, the loss
of jobs for that same time period would total 479. (P.C. #14, p.
7). These figures include jobs in the manufacturing, non—
manufacturing and governmental sectors. The Board notes that the
Agency’s Alternative Proposal used as a basis for these figures
includes the regulation of Viscase Corporation.
Viskase Corporation
The Alternative Proposal would regulate processes utilizing
the viscose process through Subparts PP and QQ. The Board has
rejected the Agency’s proposal to regulate viscose processes by a
separate Subpart 00. According to the Agency, the only affected
facility due to this regulation would be Viskase Corporation,
which has one of its six plants located at Bedford Park in Cook
County. (P.C. #6, p. 8). The viscose process is the only
practical commercially available process for producing
regenerated cellulose food casings. (October 24, 1986, B. 193).
Viskase utilizes this process in order to manufacture cellulose
food casings used in the meat processing industry to produce
sausage, hot dogs, salami, arid liverwurst. (October 24, 1986, B.
225). Viskase’s Bedford Park facility employs between 800 and
1,000 people. Viskase is one of only two companies in the United
States which utilizes the viscose process to produce cellulose
food casings. The only other domestic manufacturer of cellulose
food casings is Teepak Corporation located in Danville, Illinois.
(October 24, 1986, R. 192). Mr. Robert Odewald of Viskase
testified several times during the hearing process. Essentially,
Viskase’s position can be summarized by three points. First, it
believes that its carbon disulfide emissions should not be
regulated due to the alleged fact that carbon disulfide is not
photochemically reactive and involved in the production of
ozone. Secondly, Viskase claims, counter to the Agency’s
Position, that a carbon adsorption control is technically
infeasible. And finally, Viskase asserts that thermal
incineration for control is economically unreasonable.
86— 2 58
33
The Photochemical Reactivity of Carbon Disulfide
Viskase claims that its carbon disulfide emissions should
not be regulated by the generic rule because carbon disulfide is
not photochemically reactive to produce ozone. The Agency,
through testimony and comments, has claimed that carbon disulfide
should be regulated due to the classification of carbon disulfide
as having “intermediate reactivity.” (P.C. #6, p. 11, February
10, 1987, R. 434—435). Viskase takes an opposing view and states
that such a classification has been made only because of the
uncertainty in the photochemical reactivity of carbon disulfide.
(April 23, 1987, R. 997). Viskase concludes that if the Board
finds that Viskase must be regulated under this generic rule,
then the Board is implicitly finding that carbon disulfide is
photochemically reactive to form ozone. (April 23, 1987, R.
1000)
As the Board stated earlier in this opinion, the definition
for VOM only appeared in the Agency’s Alternative Proposal for
notice purposes. In R86—37, the Board has adopted a definition
of VON. It was clear from the Joint Hearing Officer Order issued
on March 19, 1987 that any issues regarding what should or should
not be classified as a VOM should have been addressed in R86—
37. This docket was to address the specific controls imposed on
certain VON sources under a generic proposal. Specifically, the
issues involved in this proceeding concern the reasonableness of
controls
——
not whether certain types of emissions are properly
Categorized as a VOM.
The proposal considered here regulates only VOM.
Consequently, in order to determine what VON is, one must look to
the definition as adopted by the Board in R86—37. It is readily
apparent that the Agency is taking the position that carbon
disulfide is a VOM. Visicase has never asserted that carbon
disulfide does not fall under the VON definition which was
Proposed and finally adopted by the Board in R86-37.
Essentially, Viskase wants the Board to evaluate the
Photochemical reactivity of carbon disulfide and come to the
conclusion that it should not be regulated. The Board finds that
such an issue should have been raised in the R86—37 proceeding,
not here. It would be improper for the Board in this proceeding
to come to a conclusion that carbon disulfide should not be
included under the VON definition.
Notwithstanding the above position, the Board has
substantively reviewed the evidence in the record with regard to
this issue. It appears that carbon disulfide is photochemically
reactive; however, the issue of contention is the degree of the
Photochemical reactivity. The Board finds that while the record
warrants a conclusion that carbon disulfide is less reactive than
many VOMs it does not conclusively support the contention that
carbon disulfide should not be subject to VOM regulation.
86—259
34
Carbon Adsorption Control
It is the Agency’s position that Viskase can control its
carbon disulfide emission through the use of a fluidized carbon
bed adsorption process. The Agency claims that such a control
technique is technically feasible. The Agency bases this
conclusion on information it has obtained regarding the operation
of a fluidized carbon bed adsorption process on a viscose rayon
plant in England. The Agency states that the “Landmark”
adsorption process was utilized by Courtaulds Ltd. for 17
years. (February 10, 1987, B. 437).
Viskase states that the information it has received from
Courtaulds indicates that the Landmark system utilized by
Courtaulds would cost Viskase $20,000,000 just for the carbon
adsorption technology without any ancillary equipment. Also,
Viskase states that the carbon adsorption removal process
utilized by Courtaulds would likely only achieve a 35 to 40
percent removal efficiency as applied to Viskase. According the
Viskase, the carbon adsorption tower would have to be at least
200 feet tall. Viskase is currently under a FAA restriction of a
143 feet due to its close proximity to Midway Airport. Viskase
also concludes that the use of a carbon adsorption process for
removing its carbon disulfide presents an unacceptable risk of
fires. It is important to note that Viskase is located near a
residential area. (April 23, 1987, B. 1017—1021). Viskase also
cites a recent explosion and fire at Teepak Company in Danville
as a demonstration of the risk of fire that is always present
when dealing with carbon disulfide. (April 23, 1987, R. 1003,
1159). Viskase concludes that the incineration option for
control is more cost effective than the activated carbon
adsorption process, even if that process were feasible. (April
23, 1987, B. 1023).
The Board believes that Viskase has presented sufficient
information in support of its conclusion that the fluidized
carbon bed adsorption process is technically infeasible for
Viskase. Even though the Agency presented much information on
the Courtauld’s Landmark process, Viskase successfully rebutted
almost all of the Agency’s claims with regard to this control
technology.
Incineration Control Option
It is the Agency’s position that incineration is an
economically reasonable way for Viskase to comply with the
proposed generic rule. Specifically, at hearing, the Agency
pointed to a Reeco retherm incineration process which has a 95
Percent heat recovery. (February 10, 1987, B. 439, 445.) Viskase
claims that incineration is, in fact, the only technically
feasible method for compliance. However, Viskase states that
such a compliance option would be economically unreasonable.
After the Agency suggested that Viskase could install a Reeco
86—260
35
retherm incinerator, Viskase presented the Board with an estimate
as to the cost of the installation of such a system. Viskase’s
estimate relies upon a quote from Reeco. The estimate includes
the utilization of two thermal oxidizers (each processing half of
Viskase’s air stream) as well as the cost for installing sulfur
dioxide scrubbers, which would be necessary due to the production
of sulfur dioxide from the incineration process, along with all
the ancillary systems. Viskase arrives at a grand total of
$13,498,000. (Exhibit 46, attachment C).
This figure is the lowest cost estimate proffered by Viskase
with regards to the incineration option. A letter from Reeco
indicates that the redundancy of the two incinerators as well as
the selection of corosion resistant materials makes the
installation of the system extraordinarily expensive. (Exhibit
46, Attachment C). Viskase claims that it needs to maintain a
continuous air flow through the vent system so that in case of
malfunctions by the incinerator, the plant would not have to shut
down. With two incinerators, Viskase would be assured of at
least 50 percent of the air flow to be processed in the event
that one incinerator malfunctions. Due to safety concerns, it is
imperative that the carbon disulfide is continuously vented out
of the plant, according to Viskase. (December 18, 1987, R. 1030—
1031).
Viskase also testified earlier in the proceeding that if it
utilized incineration as a control option, it would be creating
various other pollutants that would have to be similarly
treated. Specifically, Viskase cited that each pound of carbon
disulfide oxidized would produce 1.7 pounds of sulfur disulfide
(SO2). (October 24, 19
,
R. 201). Due to this fact, s0~
scrubbers would be necessary whenever incineration is utilized at
the plant and are included in cost estimates. Viskase wishes to
Operate the incinerators, if it is forced to utilize
incinerators, for only seven months out of the year. This would
be consistent with Ill. Mm. Code 215.106, according to Viskase.
~April 23, 1987, R. 1009). During the winter months when the
incinerators would not be operative, Viskase would utilize
hydrogen sulfide scrubbers which it currently operates. During
Such times, the carbon disulfide would just be vented to the
atmosphere uncontrolled. (December 18, 1987, R. 1031).
Impell, in the EcIS states, that “there is substantial
evidence to suggest that Viskase’s actual cost for carbon
disulfide control at the Bedford Park facility would be higher
than the generic industry experience cited by IEPA. However, the
Viskase estimates are much higher than typical costs for the
purchase, installation, and operation of similar equipment.”
(EcIS, p. 31). Impell attempted to recalculate the cost
estimates for Viskase in order to reflect areas in which Impell
believes savings can be realized. Although Impell did not
develop a detailed design proposal, it concluded that Viskase
“may have been overly conservative in both the specification of
86—261
36
system design
and in the estimation of the corresponding
course.”
Impell believes that installation of the controls could
be completed for $4 to $6 million less than what Viskase
estimates. As a result, Impell estimates a cost effectiveness of
$3,500 per ton removed; Viskase has estimated the cost to be
$5,363 per ton removed. Both these cost effective figures would
be based on 7 month operation of the incinerators. On a 12—month
per year basis, the Impell estimates lead to cost effectiveness
of $2,400 per ton and Viskase estimates come to $3400 per ton.
The Agency requests that the Board utilize Impell’s figure
regarding the cost of incineration at Viskase’s plant. However,
the Agency emphasizes that the Board should consider the cost
effectiveness figures for a 12—month operation time period rather
than the 7—month time period proposed by Viskase. The 12—month
time period would substantially reduce the cost effectiveness
figures. (P.C. #15, p. 9). Appendix F compares the various cost
effectiveness estimates. They are as follows:
COST PER TON REMOVED
Viskase
Impell Low
Impell Conservative
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
7 mo./yr.
(788 tons
$5363
$2993
$3530
removed)
12 mo./yr.
(1350 tons
$3409
$2030
$2412
removed)
(EcIS Attachment F)
The Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA)
expressed concern that including Viskase in the rule could lead to a
closing of the facility. If that occurs, about 1,000 jobs could be
lost. DCCA requested that the “Board give strong consideration to the
economic impact of the proposed rulemaking...” (P.C. #18). The
Economic Development Commission of the City of Chicago also expressed
concern about the impact of the rule on Viskase. (P.C. #21).
The Board notes that at hearing Viskase specifically withdrew the
portion of its prepared testimony that restated its earlier contention
that the rule would necessitate cessation of production operations.
(December 18, 1987, R. 977). The plant is Viskase’s most expensive
Plant and is used as a swing plant when its more efficient plants are
at capacity. (December 18, 1987, R. 1004 and 1009). The witness
further testified that controls would make the plant even less
competitive. “...it would render that plant non—competitive within
Our own plants and with our competition....” (December 18, 1987, R.
1028). Subsequently, in P.C. #17, Viskase again pointed to plant
closing as a potential outcome of the rule:
86—262
37
Viskase has also shown that the overall
economic impact of requiring the Bedford Park
Plant to install incineration control
equipment would be extreme. If incineration
were required, the Bedford Park Plant would
simply be too expensive to continue to
operate, especially given the fact that
Teepak Corporation, of Danville, Illinois,
Viskase’s only domestic competitor, would not
be subject to similar control requirements.
The immediate effect of such a regulation
would be that the Bedford Park Plant would be
unable to compete with Tee~k, foreign
competitors or with other Viskase plants, and
would be forced to cease operation.
The plant generates 1,500 tons per year of carbon disulfide
when operating at capacity. During 1985 and 1986, it averaged
only 218 tons because, business was slow. (December 18, 1987, R.
988). During 1987, business picked up due to an explosion at a
competing plant. Viskase does not desire to have its permitted
emission level, of 1500 tons per year, reduced. (December 18,
1987, R. 1002).
In R82—14 Docket A and B (Final Order August 21, 1985), the
Board did not include Viskase in a rule requiring controls. At
that time, controls were estimated to have a capital cost of $16
to $20 million and annual operating costs of about $10 million.
The control cost per ton was estimated at about $7,000.
The USEPA has stated that it disagrees with Viskase’s
contention that control of carbon disulfide emissions is
economically infeasible. (P.C. #13). The comment does, however,
list some other considerations:
In evaluating economic feasibility for RACT,
the Agency gives significant weight to cost—
effectiveness. However, no specific cost—
effectiveness threshold exists to determine
RACT. Numerous other factors (i.e., age of
facility, quantity of emissions, nature of
emissions, severity of existing air quality
problems, extent of controls present,
comparability to standard industry practice
in related industries, cross media impacts,
economic impacts, etc.) must be considered in
establishing RACT.
Viskase filed a comment on this USEPA comment on January 28, 1988
well after the comment period closed. The Board will accept this
comment given the nature and timing of P.C. #13.
86—263
38
The State of Illinois is required to meet the 1982 state
implementation plan (SIP) requirements. As part of that package,
the IEPA has proposed including control at the Bedford Park
Plant.
Removing Viskase from the generic rule will cause a
substantial reduction in the amount of VON controlled by the SIP.
It would also leave Viskase as a major source of VOM in a non—
attainment area with no VON control at all. Such a situation
could reasonably be interpreted as counter to the SIP
requirements imposed by Section 172 of the Clean Air Act and
could lead to rejection of the Illinois SIP by USEPA with
resulting sanctions.
This proceeding has established to the Board’s satisfaction
that incineration is the only technically feasible control method
offered in this record, despite continued Agency support of its
discredited adsorption position. The remaining issues revolve
around economic feasibility and mitigating circumstances such as
the considerations listed in the USEPA comment.
The Board will keep the viscose process in the generic
rule. The Board cannot for a source of this magnitude find that
the per ton cost of control by itself is unreasonable. At the
same time, the Board notes that Viskase may seek an adjusted
RACT. During such a proceeding, Viskase could address the costs
in the light of mitigating factors and other issues. For
example, the proceeding could address the possibility of treating
an increment of the emissions rather than the entire air flow
from the plant. Another possibility would be limiting production
during the ozone season. The current record leaves only “an all
or nothing” choice where the desirable outcome may be something
in between. The Agency has reached agreements with other
industries regarding VOM emissions. It is possible that
discussions with the Agency could lead to a mutually acceptable
adjusted RACT proposal.
The Board has no desire to see the Bedford Park Plant close,
yet is not convinced that the current record has made a strong
enough case to defend leaving such a major source entirely out of
the SIP. If Viskase prevails in an adjusted BACT proceeding, the
matter will go to USEPA as a SIP revision rather than as an
integral part of the SIP. An adverse federal decision at that
time would not jeopardize the entire SIP. (October 24, 1986, B.
25). The Board is aware of Viskase’s concern over revealing
costs and notes that there are provisions for confidentiality.
Viskase has fully participated in this proceeding and is
understandably irritated at the prospect of expending additional
resources seeking adjusted RACT. The Board is sympathetic, but
cannot exclude Viskase given the content of this record and the
necessity to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
86—264
39
Compliance Date
At hearing on December 14, 1987, the Agency proposed a new
compliance deadline of April 1, 1989. After contacts with USEPA
personnel, the Agency concludes that the USEPA would approve this
generic RACT rule even if it contained a compliance date which
was after December 31, 1987, “provided that the date was
considered reasonable.” According to IERG, the new date of April
1, 1989 is “economically reasonable and technically feasible for
all its members except Viskase Corporation. In addition, IERG
asserts “that the new compliance date is fully approvable” by the
USEPA. (P.C. #22, p. 1). The Agency further asserts that recent
statements and actions of the USEPA suggest a USEPA
interpretation that the Clean Air Act and its regulations do not
mandate a December 31, 1987 compliance date. (P.C. #15, p. 20—
23)
The Board concurs with the Agency in that a compliance date
of April 1, 1989 would provide a reasonable time limit by which
sources must comply with the control requirements imposed by the
generic rule.
Conclusion
In general, the Board finds that the regulatory framework in
the Agency’s Alternative Proposal constitutes RACT. Any specific
sources which find economically unreasonable or technically
infeasible the 81 percent control limitation or the 3.5 pounds of
VON per gallon of coating limitation can pursue an alternative
emission limitation under the adjusted RACT provision of the
rule. This allows the rule some flexibility in cases where a
9eneral generic control requirement cannot be applied. The Board
rias not come to the conclusion that all sources identified by the
~~gencyon its inventory are currently meeting the requirements
imposed by the generic rule or that such requirements are RACT
for every source. That is, the Board is merely adopting a
general framework for regulatory limits in this rule.
The record contains discussion of various issues involving
many types of firms, operations, and processes. Often, the
record is quite site—specific in its development. In this
Opinion, the Board has discussed issues which the Board finds are
of primary importance. However, this Opinion is not to be
construed as an all inclusive summary or discussion of the large
record in this proceeding. The Board has looked at the record as
a whole and has come to the conclusion that the Alternative
Proposal as presently modified by the Board is reasonable and
warrants adoption.
The EcIS indicated some adverse economic impacts that would
result from the adoption of this rule. However, in general, the
Board believes that this rule is necessary as being one step
closer toward Illinois’s achievement of attainment status for the
86—265
40
Chicago and East St. Louis areas. When implemented, this rule
would reduce according to the Agency 2282 tons of VON per year.
(P.C. #6, Attachment 1; P.C. #15, p. 7). If the Board does riot
promulgate regulations or otherwise take action so as to enable
Illinois to make reasonable progress in achieving attainment
status with regard to ozone, Illinois could face federal
sanctions equaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore,
when looking at this RACT rule as a part of a system for
compliance with national ambient air quality standards, the Board
believes that the promulgation of this regulation would not
impose significant adverse economic impact on the people of the
State of Illinois. However, the failure of the Board to take
action, could create a severe adverse economic impact on the
State.
The Board believes that the environmental improvement which
would result from the implementation is significant. It is clear
from the record that the improvement in the air quality that
would result from the implementation of this rule, although
statistically small, would benefit many people, particularly
farmers and those who are sensitive to ozone.
In addition to the modifications to the Alternative Proposal
which have been accepted by the Board and enunciated in this
Opinion, the Board has also altered some of the language of the
rule so as to conform to requirements by the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules concerning incorporations by reference.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes the following amendments for Second
Notice to be filed with the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules;
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
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”:
86— 266
41
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 non—
furniture 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
Curing of furniture adhesives in an oven which
would emit in excess of 10 tons of volatile
organic material per year if no air pollution
control equipment were used
Disinfectant material to manufactured items
Plastic foam scrap or “fluff” from the
manufacture of foam containers and packaging
material to form resin pellets
Resin solutions to fiber substances
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 manufacturing process which compounds one or more
of the following and is capable of emitting
volatile organic material:
Adhesives
Asphalt solutions
86—267
4~
Caulks, sealants or waterproofing agents
Coatings, other than paint and
ink
Concrete curing compounds
Dyes
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
materials:
Chemicals listed in 35 Ill. Mm. Code 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
Sweeteners
86— 268
43
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, 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.
PART 215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART I: ADJUSTED RACT EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS
Section 215.260 Applicability
Owners and operators of emission sources subject to Subparts PP,
QQ, or BR may petition the Illinois Pollution Control Board for
an Adjusted Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Emissions Limitation for such emission sources. Owners and
Operators of emissions sources which are in existence on the
effective date of this Subpart shall submit to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board a Notice of Intent to Petition for an
Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation within 60 days after the
effective date of this Subpart. Petitions for an Adjusted RACT
Emissions Limitation shall be filed within 120 days after the
effective date of this Subpart or at the time a construction
permit is applied for from the Agency for the emission source, or
60 days after the time an emission source meets the applicability
criteria set forth in such Subparts. For the purposes of this
Subpart, uncontrolled volatile organic material emissions are the
emissions of volatile organic material which would result if no
air pollution control equipment were used.
(Source: Added at 12 Ill. Beg.
effective
)
Section 215.261 Petition
A petition for an Adjusted RACT Emission Limitation shall
contain:
86— 269
4
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
limtis(s) of Section 2l5.926(a)(l) and (2),
2l5.946(a)(l) or 2l5.966(a)(l) would be technically
infeasible 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 he achieved
pursuant to the applicable Section for each
compliance strategy listed in Section
215.261(b)(2); and
B) Emissions reduction which would be achieved
pursuant to the proposed Adjusted BACT
Emissions Limitation.
4) The basis for determining that the proposed method
of emissions reduction is PACT for the that
emission source and all information supporting that
determination.
c) Information on the economic reasonableness o.f 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
PACT Emissions Limitation including for each
compliance strategy:
A) Capital costs;
B) Operating ccsts;
R(—270
45
C) Any economic benefits, such as material
recovery; and
D) Other costs and benefits.
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) Such other costs and economic information as
the petitioner believes may assist the Board
in reaching a decision.
4)
A discussion of other factors the petitioner may
consider relevant such as:
A) Age of facility;
B) Quantity of emissions;
C) Nature of emissions;
D)
Severity of existing air quality problems;
B)
Extent of controls present;
F) Comparability to
standard industry practice in
related industries;
G)
Cross media impacts; or
H) Potential for operational modifications
5) The basis for determining that the proposed method
of emissions reduction is PACT for the emission
source and all information supporting that
determination.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Reg.
effective
Section 215.263
Public Hearing
86—27 1
46
In a public hearing before the Board noticed
and held pursuant
to the requirements of Section 28.1 of the Act, the petitioner
for an Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation shall prove:
a) That the emissions limitation prescribed pursuant to
Section 2l5.926(a)(l)
and (2), 2l5.946(a)(l)
or
2l5.966(a)(l) does not constitute RACT for the specific
emission source; and
b) That compliance with the proposed Adjusted PACT
Emissions Limitation:
1) Is RACT for that emission source based on the
information provided in the petition and at the
hearing addressing subjects described in Sections
215.261 and
2)
Will not cause or contribute to an increase in
emissions so as to prevent or interfere with the
State’s attainment of the air quality standards set
forth in Sections 243.123 and 243.125.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Reg.
effective
Section 215.264
Board Action
The Board shall issue and
maintain opinions and orders pursuant
to the requirements of Section 28.1 of the Act. In addition, the
Board shall publish a list of its determinations in accordance
with Section 28.1 of the Act. If an owner or operator of an
emission source complies with the requirements of Sections
215.261 and 215.263 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 2l5.966(a)(l)
and
b)
Shall require compliance by a date certain as
established by the Board for an existing source or prior
to the operation of a new emission source.
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
Section 215.267
Agency Petition
The Agency may petition the Board for an Adjusted BACT Emission
Limitation for an emission source subject to this Subpart at any
time after the effective date of this Subpart. The provisions of
Sections 215.261, 215.263, and 215.264 shall apply to such
petitions.
86—272
47
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
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, Q, B, 5, U, V, 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, Magie
oil, or glycol.
c) For the purposes of this Subpart, uncontrolled volatile
organic material emissions are the emissions of volatile
organic material which would result if no air pollution
control equipment were used.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Beg.
effective
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 Magie oil and glycol as the
primary solvent.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Beg.
effective
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.
86—273
48
(Source: Added at Ill. Reg.
effective
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 ~ inch beyond the 0uter rim
of the 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.
(Source: Added at Ill. Reg.
effective
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.
b) No person shall operate a grinding mill fabricated or
modified after the effective date of this Subpart 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.
(Source: Added at
Ill. Beg.
effective
)
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:
8 6—274
49
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.
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.
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
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.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Reg.
effective
Section 215.636
Compliance Date
Owners
and operators of emission sources subject to this Subpart
shall comply with its requirements by April 1, 1989.
8 6—275
50
(Source: Added at Ill. Reg.
effective
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 to a
plant’s miscellaneous fabricated product manufacturing
process emission sources which are not regulated by
Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, B, S, U, V, X, Y, or Z if the
plant is subject to this Subpart. A plant is subject to
this Subpart if it contains process emission sources,
not regulated by Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, B, 5, U, V,
X, y,
or Z, which as a group would emit 100 tons or more
per year of volatile organic material if no air
pollution control ez~uipment 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) Emission sources
whose emissions of volatile
organic material are subject to limits in 35 Ill.
Mm.
Code 230 or 35 Ill. Adm. Code 231; or the
Lowest Achievable Emission Bate, pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 203; or Best Available Control
Technology, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 (1987) or
Section 9.4 of the Act. The Board incorporates by
reference 40 CFB 52.21 (1987). This incorporation
includes no subsequent amendments or editions.
e) For the purposes of this Subpart, an emission source
shall be considered regulated by a Subpart if it is
subject to the limits of that Subpart or it would be
subject to the limits of that Subpart if the emission
sources had sufficient size, throughput or emissions, or
if the emission source did not meet a specific exemption
contained in that Subpart.
86—276
51
f) For the purposes of this Subpart, uncontrolled volatile
organic material emissions are the emissions of volatile
organic material which would result if no air pollution
control equipment were used.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Beg.
effective
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.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Beg.
effective
)
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
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 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 April 1,
1989.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Beg.
effective
)
SUBPART
QQ:
MISCELLANEOUS FORMULATION MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Section 215.940
Applicability
86—27 7
52
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 to a
plant’s miscellaneous formulation manufacturing process
emission sources, which are not regulated by Subparts B,
E, F, N, P, Q, R, 5, U, V, X, Y, or Z if the plant is
subject to this Subpart.
A plant is subject to this
Subpart if it contains process emission sources, not
regulated by Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, V, X,
Y, or Z, which 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
2.5 tons 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 35 Ill.
Mm. Code 230 or 35 Ill. Adm. Code 231; or the
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 203; or Best Available Control
Technology, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 (1987) or
Section 9.4 of the Act. The Board incorporates by
reference 40 CFR 52.21 (1987). This incorporation
includes no subsequent amendments or editions.
e) For the purposes of this Subpart, an emission source
shall be considered regulated by a Subpart if it is
subject to the limits of that Subpart or it would be
subject to the limits of that Subpart if the emission
sources had sufficient size, throughput or emissions, or
if the emission source did not meet a specific exemption
contained in that Subpart.
f) For the purposes of this Subpart, uncontrolled volatile
organic
material emissions are the emissions of volatile
organic material which would result if no air pollution
control equipment were used.
86—278
53
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
)
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.
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
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 PACT emissions limitation obtained
pursuant to Subpart I.
b) Owners and operators of emission sources subject to this
Subpart shall comply with its requirements by April 1,
1989.
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
)
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, McHenry, Monroe, St. Clair and Will.
b) The requirements of this Subpart shall apply to a
plant’s miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing
process emission sources which are not regulated by
Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, R, S, U, V, X, Y, or Z if the
plant is subject to this Subpart.
A plant is subject to
this Subpart if it contains process emission sources,
not regulated by Subparts B, E, F, N, P, Q, B, 5, (3, V,
X, Y, or Z, which as a group would emit 100 tons or more
per year of volatile organic material if no air
pollution
control equipment were used.
86—279
34
c) If a plant ceases to fulfill the criteria of subsection
(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 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 230 or 35 Ill. Adm. Code 231; or the
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 203; or Best Available Control
Technology, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 (1987) or
Section 9.4 of the Act. The Board incorporates by
reference 40 CFR 52.21 (1987). This incorporation
includes no subsequent amendments or editions.
e) For the purposes of this Subpart, an emission source
shall be considered regulated by a Subpart if it is
subject to the limits of that Subpart or it would be
subject to the limits of that Subpart if the emission
sources had sufficient size, throughput or emissions, or
if the emission source did not meet a specific exemption
contained in that Subpart.
f) For the purposes of this Subpart, uncontrolled volatile
organic material emissions are the emissions of volatile
organic material which would result if no air pollution
control equipment were used.
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
)
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.
(Source: Added at Ill. Reg.
effective
)
Section 215.966 Control Requirements
86— 280
55
a) Every owner or operator of an emission source of
volatile or~ganicmaterial 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 April 1,
1989.
(Source: Added at Ill. Beg.
effective
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J.D. Dumelle, R. Flemal, and M.L. Nardulli dissented.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certf that the ab~yeOpinion and Order was
adopted
o~he
day ~
1988, by a vote
~
__
Dorothy M. Gi.thn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
86—281
