R08-17
(Rulemaking Air)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED
NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
PART 223 STANDARDS AND
)
LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC
)
MATERrAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA
)
SOURCES
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
John Therriault
Assistant Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(VIA
ELECTRONIC MAIL)
Timothy J. Fox, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 6060 I
(VIA U.S. MAIL)
(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office
of the Clerk of
Illinois Pollution Control Board an ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF ALEC M.
DAVIS and ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP'S
RF:SPONSE TO ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
POST-HEARING COMMENTS on behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group,
which are
upon
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP,
Dated: July
25,2008
Katherine D. Hodge
Monica T. Rios
Lauren C. Lurkins
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
By:
/s/ Katherine D.
Hodg~_
One of Its Attorneys
Alec M. Davis
General Counsel
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
215 East Adams St.
Springfield, Illinois 62701
(217) 522-5512
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
PART 223 STANDARDS AND
)
LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC
)
MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA
)
SOURCES
)
R08-l7
(Rulemaking
-- Air)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF ALEC M. DAVIS
I, Alec M. Davis, hereby enter my appearance in this matter on behalf of the
lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Alec M. Davis
Alec M. Davis
Dated: July 25, 2008
M. Davis
lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group
215 East Adams St.
:-'-;prll1gtleld,
Illinois 62701
12
IERG:OOl! Filings! EOA - AMC
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER
OF:
)
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
PART 223 STANDARDS AND
)
LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC
)
MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA
)
SOURCES
)
R08-17
(Rulemaking
- Air)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
GROUP'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S POST-HEARING COMMENTS
NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
("!ERG"),
by one of its attorneys, and hereby submits its response to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency's ("Illinois EPA") Post-Hearing Comments
in the
above-captioned mlemaking proceeding.
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
In this proceeding, the Illinois EPA has proposed regulations for consumer
and commercial products beyond the
of the national rule promulgated on
September 11, 1998, and codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 59, Subpart
The Illinois EPA
stated
in its "Technical Support Document for Control of Volatile Organic Material
Emissions from Consumer and Commercial Products, Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings, and Aerosol Coatings" ("TSD"), dated November 2007, that these
proposed regulations are necessary
to" ...attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS by 2010 ..."
and that such regulations
will " ... reduce VOM emissions from the source category by
14.2% beyond..." the national mle. See TSD at 5 and 17.
2.
It
appears that the Illinois EPA believes that both the economic and
technical foundation for its proposed rule and the fonnulation of the rule itself is derived
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
from the 2006 version of the Ozone Transport Commission Model Rule ("OTC 2006").
However, the documents submitted
by the Illinois EPA in support of its proposal in this
proceeding, which are listed in "Attachment A
- Documents Relied Upon" ("Attachment
A") to the Regulatory Proposal filed on January
2,2008, do not provide the economic
and technical justification to support adoption
of OTC 2006. Instead, Attachment A lists
documents that were prepared to support adoption
of the 2001 version of the OTC Model
Rule ("OTC 200 I").
OTC 2006 includes certain additional categories to, and changes in
exemptions from OTC 2001.
Exhibit 3, admitted at the June 4, 2008 hearing.
3.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA")
is
currently developing a proposal to amend its own consumer and commercial products
rule that is located at 40 C.F.R. Part 59, Subpart C, as noted above.
The Illinois EPA has
indicated that, once the
USEPA proposes its consumer products rule, the Illinois EPA
would review and likely defer to the USEPA rule. April 30, 2008 Hearing Transcript at
11-12.
4.
!ERG understands that the lJSEPA's efforts to propose its consumer
products rule have been delayed because the USEPA "continues to struggle with its
assessment
of the cost impacts" associated with certain additional categories to be added
to the federal rule. See June 20, 2008, e-mail from Mr. Bruce Moore, the Consumer and
Commercial Products Sector Team Leader at the
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
of the USEPA, to Lauren Lurkins, regarding the status of the USEPA's
consumer products proposed rule.
Exhibit 1 attached hereto. (IERG assumes these
additional categories are the new categories added in
OTC 2006.) In his e-mail.Mr.
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
Moore also stated that the USEPA plans to propose its consumer products amendments in
late summer or early fall of 2008, with promulgation following in spring of 2009. Id.
II.
THE ILLINOIS EPA'S PROPOSAL
5.
As noted above, the Illinois EPA has stated that it based the consumer
products rule proposed in this proceeding upon the
aTe Model Rule. April 30, 2008
Hearing Transcript at 11-12. However, notwithstanding the Illinois EPA's testimony
at
the two hearings held in this proceeding and its Post-Hearing Comments, there continues
to be considerable confusion as to which version of the aTe Model Rule the Illinois EPA
relied upon
as its basis.
6.
The Illinois EPA cited aTe 2001 at Reference 16 in TSD and in
Attachment A of its Regulatory Proposal. At the June 4, 2008 Hearing (hereafter
"Hearing"), in an effort to better understand the complete basis for the Illinois EPA's
proposed rule, IERG offered a redlined copy
of aTe 2006, showing changes made
het\lveen aTe 2001 and aTe 2006.
Exhibit
3. Neither Exhibit
nor any version of
aTe 2006, however, was included by the Illinois EPA as a reference in its TSD or in
Attachment A
The Illinois EPA's publie statements prompt confusion regarding the basis
for its proposed rule:
•
At Hearing, the Illinois EPA stated
"neither rule was the sole basis
for our rule," which IERG would interpret to mean that neither
aTe 2001 nor aTe 2006 was solely relied upon by the Illinois
EPA in drafting its proposal. Hearing Transcript at 14.
•
The Illinois EPA also repeatedly stated that when it began drafting
its proposed rule, it used
aTe 2001 as its basis. Id. at 12.
•
The Illinois EPA stated that while the current text of its proposal
"is probably closer to the 2006 and its limits," "a lot of the
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
teclmical support might have come from earlier, and I believe that
there
wasn'tmuch updating to that technical support for the 2006
ruling." Hearing Transcript at 12-13.
•
The Illinois EPA, however, then admitted that there were
"significant changes" made between
aTC
2001 and
aTC 2006.
Id. at 18.
•
Thereafter, in its Post-Hearing Comments, the Illinois EPA stated
that "[i]t should be noted,
as it was a number of times at the public
hearing, that the proposed regulation was not in fact based on the
200 I
aTC
Model Rule. The 2006
aTC
Model Rule was used as a
resource, in addition to input from affected industries
..." Illinois
EPA Post-Hearing Comments at
~
3 and 4.
8.
The Illinois EPA's Post Hearing comment stating that
aTC
2001 was not
used as a basis for the proposed rule and
aTC
2006 was used as a resource for
developing the proposed rule contradicts the documentation submitted by the Illinois
EPA, as well as testimony of the Illinois EPA at Hearing, wherein, as detailed above, the
Illinois
that
2001 and
combined, were
as the
for
its proposed rule.
As discussed in more detail below, IERG has conducted a thorough review
of the sources cited by the Illinois EPA as a basis for its proposed rule, and has concluded
that the Illinois EPA relied upon emission reduction estimates and economic impact
information developed for
aTC
2001 but structured the rule to conform most closely to
the more restrictive provisions ofaTC 2006.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
The Illinois EPA has Proposed a Rule Consistent with OTC 2006,
yet Relied on
OTC 2001 for its Technical Support
10.
In the Introduction to its TSD, the Illinois EPA stated that the emissions
reductions from its proposed rule will help Illinois attain the 8 hour NAAQS by 20 IO.
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
TSD at 5. The TSD further stated in Section 2.7 that such emission reductions will
amount to 14.2% for the consumer and commercial products rule beyond those achieved
by the federal rule. Id. at 29.
11.
The Illinois EPA confinned that the 14.2% reduction from the consumer
and commercial products rule was used in
its recent attainment demonstration. Illinois
EPA Post-Hearing Comments at
~
1.
12.
In its TSD and Attachment A, the Illinois EPA stated that, in drafting its
proposed rule, it relied on MACTEC's "Interim White Paper - Midwest RPO Candidate
Control Measures" for the source category
of "Consumer and Commercial Products"
("MACTEC White Paper"). TSD at Reference 3; Attachment A at Reference 3. In
particular, the MACTEC White Paper was cited
by the Illinois EPA as the basis for the
14.2% reduction
in volatile organic material ("VOM") emissions that will result from
implementing the OTC Model Rule.
13
The MACTEC White
provided that "[a]l1 products manufactured for
sale or use within an OTC State after January 1,2005 would need to comply with the
VOC content limits in the OTC Model Rule." MACTEC White Paper at
3. This
statement indicates that OTC 2001 was the basis for the MACTEC White Paper that the
Illinois EPA relied upon in drafting its proposal. OTC 2006 could not set a compliance
date
of January 1,2005, because it was not finalized until September 13,2006. Instead,
OTC 2001 had a compliance date
of January 1, 2005. See Exhibit 3.
14.
In its Post-Hearing Comments, the Illinois EPA attached an updated
version
of the MACTEC White Paper, dated March 10, 2006, and noted in paragraph 4 of
its Post-Hearing Comments that it (the updated MACTEC White Paper) "is essentially
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
unchanged in any way pertaining to the questions posed at hearings. The estimated
reductions for the OTC model rule for consumer products remain 14.2% beyond existing
federal rules, and include the additional categories in the 2006 OTC model rule.
It
should
be noted, as it was a number of times at the public hearing, that the proposed regulation
was not in fact based on the 2001 OTC Model Rule." Illinois EPA Post-Hearing
Comments at
~
4. This statement is incorrect. First, the Illinois EPA affinned the 14.2%
reduction that originated in the technical infonnation prepared
in support of OTC 2001.
The Illinois EPA, however, stated in
its next sentence that its proposed regulation was not
based on OTC 2001. The fonnulation of the Illinois EPA's rule may well have come
from its review
of OTC 2006, which itself is derived from OTC 2001, as shown in
Exhibit 3, but the technical basis for the rule is clearly from OTC 2001.
15.
Also in support of the 14.2% emission reduction, the MACTEC White
Paper cited
to a document prepared by E.H. Pechan
&
Associates, Inc., entitled "Control
Measure Development Support Analysis
Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules"
("Pechan Document") and dated March 31, 2001. Because
of its date, it is clear that the
Pechan Document was also prepared in reference to OTC 2001, and not OTC 2006. The
Illinois EPA also listed the Pechan Document as a reference in its TSD and Attachment
A. See TSD at Reference 18; Attachment A at Reference 18.
16.
In paragraph 5 of its Post-Hearing Comments, the Illinois EPA referenced
Exhibit 3, which it also discussed at Hearing. Illinois EPA Post-Hearing Comment at
~
5.
As set forth above, at Hearing, the Illinois EPA's witness admitted that there were
"significant changes" made between OTC 2001 and OTC 2006, as shown in Exhibit
3.
Hearing Transcript at 18. Also at Hearing, Dr. Anand Rao of the Illinois Pollution
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
Control Board ("Board") asked "[s]ince you will be submitting that document later in
your comment, would it be possible for you to highlight
some of these significant
changes and
how they're reflected in your mles?" Hearing Transcript at 19. While the
Illinois EPA correctly stated in its Post-Hearing Comments that Exhibit 3 "is highlighted
to reflect the changes from the 2001 and 2006 versions
of the OTC Model Rule for
Consumer Products," the Illinois
EPA failed to respond to Dr. Rao's question. In its
Post-Hearing Comments, the Illinois EPA did not show
how OTC 2006 compares to its
proposed rule.
The details of the differences between the two documents are necessary
for understanding the Illinois
EPA's basis for its changes. Therefore, IERG respectfully
requests that the Board require the Illinois EPA to provide this information to the Board
for purposes
of this mlemaking proceeding.
17.
Also, the Illinois EPA
that, notwithstanding
failure to include
Exhibit 3
as support, it relied upon Exhibit 3 in the development of its regulatory
proposal. Moreover, the Illinois
EPA
n.~~.~~.rt
that Exhibit 3 contained
categories in addition to those included in
OTC 200 I:
following
a.
Adhesive Removers:
1.
Floor or Wall Covering
11.
Gasket or Thread Locking
HI.
General Purpose
iv.
Specialty
b.
Adhesives:
1.
Contact General Purpose
ii.
Contact Special Purpose
c.
Air Fresheners:
i.
Solids/Semisolids (changed form Solids/Gel)
d.
Anti-Static Product, Non-Aerosol
e.
Electrical Cleaner
f.
Electronic Cleaner
g.
Fabric Refresher:
L
Aerosol
H.
Non Aerosol
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
h.
Footwear or Leather Care Products:
i.
Aerosol
11.
Solid
111.
Other Forms
1.
Graffiti Remover:
1.
Aerosol
ii.
Non-Aerosol
J.
Hair Styling Products:
i.
Aerosol and Pump Sprays
ii.
All Other Forms
k.
Shaving Gel
I.
Toilet/Urinal Care:
1.
Aerosol
ii.
Non-Aerosol
m.
Wood Cleaner:
1.
Aerosol
11.
Non-Aerosol
Exhibit 3 at 20-24; Hearing Transcript at 23-26,
18,
Moreover, the Illinois EPA stated that it is accurate that under OTC 2001,
exemption (i) would apply
to both air tre:shemers and insecticides containing at least
98% para-dichlorobenzene.
l
Hearing Transcript at 26. Further, the Illinois EPA agreed
that under OTC 2006, exemption
(i)
only applies to msectlCH:1es containing 98 percent
para-dichlorobenzene.
2
Id. at
Therefore, in addition to the new categories, Exhibit 3
includes a modification of at least one exemption, namely exemption (i), thus subjecting
additional products to regulation.
19.
Since it is clear that the Illinois EPA based the teclmical support for the
rulemaking on OTC 2001, including the emission reductions achieved by OTC 2001, and
I
In OTe 2001, exemption (i) stated the following: "The voe limits specified in section 3(a) shall not
apply
to air fresheners and insecticides containing at least 98% paradichlorobenzene," OTe 2001 at 33.
In Exhibit 3 (redlined OTe 2006), exemption (i) stated the following: "The voe limits specified in
Section 3(a) shall not apply
to~
air fresheners and
ill
insecticides containing at least 98% para-dichlorobenzene....
Exhibit 3 at 29-30.
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
OTC 2001 did not include a number of categories and modified at least one exemption,
IERG asserts that the Illinois EPA's goal
ofVOM emissions reduction could be achieved
without these additional categories and without the modified exemption.
20.
The Illinois EPA's response at paragraph 6
of its Post-Hearing Comments
was internally inconsistent and confusing. Illinois EPA Post-Hearing Comments at
~
6.
The first part of the response stated that the total emission reduction estimated to come
from the proposed rule was unchanged from the 14.2% reduction produced by OTC
2001
because the additional categories added in the Illinois EPA'sproposed rule did not
provide additional reductions. If this is true, it would lead one to question the rationale
for including the categories at all.
If the reasoning behind adding the new categories is to
provide a more explicit representation of previous categories, then IERG respectfully
requests that the Board require the Illinois EPA to provide this information to the Board
for purposes
of this rulemaking proceeding. The second part of the response was also
unclear,
as it makes no sense that the 14.2% emission reduction produced by OTC 200
I
beyond the emissions derived from the federal rule codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 59, Subpart
C, would remain unchanged, even when additional emission reduction categories are
included in the Illinois
EPA'sproposed rule. In the third part of its response here, the
Illinois EPA again stated that some
of the additional categories did not provide additional
emission reductions because they were already included in the existing categories from
OTC 2001. IERG respectfully requests that the Board require the Illinois EPA
to provide
this information to the Board for purposes
of this rulemaking proceeding. In essence, the
Illinois EPA'sresponse at paragraph 6 of its Post-Hearing Comments would lead one to
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
conclude that any category or limit beyond aTC 2001 is not necessary to achieve the
14.2% reduction the Illinois EPA has relied upon.
21.
In addition, Table 2.7.1
of the TSD, entitled "Estimated VaM Emission
Reductions for Consumer Products," did not include the additional categories listed
above in paragraph
17. TSD at 30-33. At Hearing, the Illinois EPA was asked to review
Table 2.7.1
of the TSD and identify the new categories that were added in aTC 2006.
Hearing Transcript at 29-30. The Illinois
EPA's response at paragraph 7 of its Post-
Hearing Comments did not address the question that was asked at Hearing. See Illinois
EPA Post-Hearing Comments at
~
7. Table 2.7.1 totals approximately to the 14.2%
reduction the Illinois EPA claimed. It, therefore, follows that emission reductions from
the new categories were not considered by the Illinois EPA, and are not necessary
to
achieve the required 14.2% emission reduction that the Illinois EPA is relying upon to
attain its air quality goals. Note too that some of the categories were included in aTC
2006 for purposes other than vaM reductions? The Illinois EPA should provide
explanation to the Board
as to why it included the additional categories in its proposed
rule. At present, the Illinois EPA has not yet provided such an explanation, nor did it
respond to the question it was asked at Hearing on this particular issue. IERG
respectfully requests that the Board require the Illinois EPA to provide such infonnation
to the Board for purposes
of this rulemaking proceeding.
22.
The Illinois EPA admitted that it did not include the ozone reducing
impact
of emission reductions from at least some of these categories. Hearing Transcript
Exhibit 3 at 1, Note 1.
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
at 30-31. Further, the Illinois EPA admitted that it does not know the emission
reductions to be achieved from adding these additional categories. Id. at 31.
23.
The Illinois EPA was asked whether the OTC estimated emission
reductions for the additional categories for OTC 2006. Hearing Transcript at 31. The
Illinois
EPA's response at paragraph 8 is not responsive.
Illinois EPA Post-Hearing
Comments at
~
8. First, the reference to "response 8" is incorrect. Second, the Illinois
EPA stated on several occasions during the Hearing that CARB, OTC and the State of
New Jersey developed such estimates. In fact, the Illinois EPA even used the category
breakdown from New Jersey as its basis for Table 2.7.1 of the TSD that provides a
category-by-category breakdown
of emission reductions. The Illinois EPA appears to
have simply copied the infonnation
in its proposal directly from these sources without
conducting any analysis as to the basis for each source. The Illinois EPA, in its Post-
Hearing Comments, instead, stated that such analysis is not necessary because
LADCO/MACTEC
"considered" the additional categ(me:s. The Illinois EPA should
explain for the Board in what way the additional categories were considered, and how, if
at all, their emission reductions figured into the 14.2% reduction. IERG respectfully
requests that the Board require the Illinois EPA to provide such information to the Board
for purposes
of this rulemaking proceeding.
24.
As discussed
at Hearing, Exhibit 3 denotes with an asterisk certain
compounds that are affected by OTC 2006 and
"may not cause or contribute to the
formation of ozone, but due to their hazardous nature are included in [Exhibit 3] ..."
Exhibit 3 at 1, Note 1. The Illinois EPA admitted that it did not do an independent
analysis
of the compounds denoted with an asterisk to detemline whether there was an air
11
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
quality impact on ozone fonnation. Hearing Transcript at 34-35. For example, the aTC
noted the following new subcategories with an asterisk:
(i)
products containing ozone-
depleting compounds;
(1) requirements for contact adhesives, electronic cleaners,
footwear or leather care products, and general purpose degreasers; (m) requirements for
adhesive removers, electrical cleaners, and graffiti removers; (n) requirements
for solid
air fresheners and toilet/urinal care products. See Exhibit 3 at 27-29.
25.
In paragraph 9
of its Post-Hearing Comments, the Illinois EPA noted that
subcategory
(i)
of Exhibit 3 regarding "products containing ozone-depleting
compounds,,4
is "regulated for other purposes in Illinois and federally and should not be
included in an area source VaM regulation." Illinois EPA Post-Hearing Comments at
~
9. IERG agrees with this response of the Illinois EPA. However, no infonnation has
been provided
by the Illinois EPA as to its basis for including (or not excluding) other
new subcategories
of compounds that, as the aTC stated, may not cause or contribute to
the formation
ozone.
26.
The Illinois EPA was asked whether it considered amending
its proposal
to be consistent with the technical and economic support it has provided (which clearly
In Exhibit 3, subcategory (i) stated the following:
"Products containing ozone-depleting compounds.
For
any consumer product for which standards are specified under subsection (a), no person shall sell, supply,
offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in (OTC State) any consumer product which contains any of the
following ozone-depleting compounds:
CFC-ll (trichlorofluoromethane), CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane),
CFC-113 (1,1, 1-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane),
CFC-114 (l-chloro-I, 1-difluoro-2-chloro-2,2-difluoroethane),
CFC-II5 (chloropentafluoroethane), halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane),
halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane), halon 2402 (dibromotetrafluoroethal1e),
HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethal1e), HCFC-123 (2,2-dichloro-l, 1, I-trifluoroethane),
HCFC-124 (2-chloro-l, 1, I,2-tetrafluoroethane),
HCFC-I4I b (I,I-dichloro-l-fluoroethane), HCFC-142b (I-chloro-l, 1-difluoroethane),
1, I, I-trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride."
Exhibit 3 at 27.
12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
comes from aTC 2001), or in the alternative, whether it has considered offering the
additional support needed to justify the
lUle it is proposing which is derived from aTC
2006. Hearing Transcript at 39. In paragraph 10 of its Post-Hearing Comments, the
lllinois
EPA stated that CARB researched the additional categories for the purpose of
"similar lUlemakings." The Illinois EPA admitted throughout the Hearing that the aTC
and CARB both had an additional goal of regulating hazardous air pollutants when they
developed their lUles. The
aTC made this clear in the introductory notes of Exhibit 3.
See Exhibit 3 at 1. The lllinois EPA should include all the documents it relied upon in
developing its proposed
lUle, and not reference documents it did not use. For instance, if
the lllinois EPA principally relied upon the MACTEC White Paper or the various
versions
of the aTC Model Rule, but did not review the references on which those
documents are based, then the lllinois EPA should not cite them as a reference and not
introduce them into the record, since they will only obfuscate the facts that are relevant to
determining the lllinois
basis
proposal.
27.
The lllinois EPA was asked whether it would go forth and do its own
teclmical analysis for the additional categories. Hearing Transcript at 40. The lllinois
EPA's response at paragraph
11
of its Post-Hearing Comments stated that it would not be
doing such an analysis, and that the additional categories did not significantly impact the
overall percentage emission reduction
of the proposed regulation. lllinois EPA Post-
Hearing Comment at
~
I I.
If that is the case, again, !ERG questions why the additional
categories are included in the proposal at
alL
13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
B.
The Illinois EPA has Proposed a Rule Consistent with OTC 2006,
yet Relied on OTC 2001 for its Economic Support
28.
The Illinois EPA admitted that it did not do its own analysis of the
compliance cost associated with adding the additional categories. Hearing Transcript
at
32. Instead, Illinois EPA relied on the analysis of other resources as to the costs, and
stated that,
if other resources did not consider the costs, then the Illinois EPA would not
have considered the costs. Id. The Illinois EPA also agreed that it is possible that it did
not consider the cost
of compliance associated with modified exemption (i). Id. at 33.
29.
At Hearing, the Illinois EPA was asked whether it would go forth and
do
its own economic analysis for the additional categories. Hearing Transcript at 40. The
Illinois
EPA'sresponse at paragraph 11 of its Post-Hearing Comments stated that it
would not be doing such an analysis, and that the additional categories did not
slgm!lca:ntly
lInp;act the overall economic Impact
the proposed regulation, which it
stated in its TSD as being $800/ton of YOM emissions reduced. Illinois EPA Post-
Hearing Comments at
~
11.
the updated MACTEC White Paper demonstrated that
additional categories beyond OTC 2001 have a control cost of $4,800/ton. MACTEC
White Paper (March 10,2006) at 2 and 6. Because of the significant economic impact of
these additional categories, the Illinois EPA should be required to provide its own
analysis
of the compliance costs associated with the categories.
C.
The Illinois EPA has not Provided Sufficient Support for its Proposal
30.
The Illinois EPA was asked whether the Board should go forward with the
adoption
of the rule without technical and economic analyses for celiain affected
categories. I-Iearing Transcript at 40. In paragraph
12 of its Post-Hearing Comments, the
Illinois EPA claimed that appropriate teclmical and economic analyses have been
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
performed for all affected categories. Illinois EPA Post-Hearing Comments at
~
12.
However, the information provided by IERG herein demonstrates that the Illinois EPA's
claim is not supported by the record in this proceeding.
31.
In light
of the information contained herein, IERG respectfully requests
the Board to consider the following three options as solutions for curing the deficiencies
of the Illinois EPA's proposed rule:
Option
1 :
Option 2 :
The Board could choose to simply wait for the USEPA
to
adopt the federal consumer and commercial products rule.
As detailed above, the USEPA
is currently devoting its
resources to evaluating the economics of OTC 2006, and
anticipates issuing a proposed rule in late summer or early
fall
of2008.
The Board could choose to proceed to First Notice on OTC
2001. Reliance on OTC 2001 would mean deletion of the
categories added in OTC 2006 and use of exemption (i)
from OTC 2001. This action is justified because, as
detailed
the
and economic support for
the Illinois EPA'sproposal that is currently in the record is
for OTC 2001 only, and the 14.2% emission reduction
r!PfTV"'i! from OTC 2001 was
by the Illinois EPA in its
attainment demonstration.
The Board could choose to require the Illinois EPA to
provide sufficient support and justification so that the
Board
may meaningfully consider the technical feasibility
and economic reasonableness
of OTC 2006.
15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
IV.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
hereby respectfully requests the Illinois Pollution Control Board to take action consistent
with these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
Katherine
D. Hodge
Dated: July 25, 2008
Katherine
D. Hodge
Monica
T. Rios
Lauren
C. Lurkins
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
Alec M. Davis
General Counsel
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
215 East Adams Street
Springfield, Illinois 62701
(217) 522-5512
lER(i:OO !/Filim!::,/flnal l{C:spOflse to tEPA l'ost-lie<i[rmQ Comments
16
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
Lauren C. Lurkins
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Moore.Bruce@epamail.epa.gov
Friday, June
20, 2008 7:28 AM
Lauren
C. Lurkins
Rosenthal.Steven@epamail.epa.gov
Re: Consumer Products Rule Status and Clarification.
Hi Lauren,
s
s
be
Yes, there is some confusion somewhere.
The 18 (e)
al
c metal
are
CTG as "mis
"l.
We had
1
y
considered
a nat
industrial adhesives,
on further consideration are
The
IV proposal and draft CTGs should be s
ished in
FR in earl
There wi
be a 30 to
on whether a hearing is requested).
We
court order
finalize the CTGs
9/ 0/08.
t
tions
clari
is
and
NC
2771
Bruce
Consumer
Commercial Products
US Envi.ronment
Phone ( 1)
41- 460
Fax ( 1
"moore. bruce@
. gov"
EXHIBIT
1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D. Hodge, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the
attached ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF ALEC
M. DAVIS and ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP'S RESPONSE
TO
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S POST-HEARING COMMENTS on
behalf
of the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group upon:
Mr. Jolm Therriault
Assistant Clerk
ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite I 1-500
Chicago, Illinois 6060 I
via electronic mail on July 25, 2008; and upon:
Mr. Tim Fox
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 6060 I
Charles
Matoesian,
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1 I North
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Matthew
J. Dunn, Esq.
Chief
Environmental Bureau North
Office
of the Attorney General
69 West Washington Street
Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Mark
A. Biel
Chemical Industry Council
of Illinois
400 West Monroe
Suite 205
Springfield, Illinois 62704
Virginia Yang, Esq.
Deputy General Counsel
Illinois Department
of Natural Resources
Springfield, Illinois 6270 I- I27 I
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois, on July
2008.
By:
/s/ Katherine
D. Hodge
Katherine
D. Hodge
IERG:OO
1I
Filings! NOF COS EOA AMD
&
Post-Hearing Comments 6,04J18 R08-17
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 25, 2008
* * * * * PC #4 * * * * *
