P95090A.PDF

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

MINNESOTA MINING & )

MANUFACTURING COMPANY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. PCB 95-90

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION AGENCY, )

)

Respondent. )

The following is the transcript of a hearing

held in the above-entitled matter, taken

stenographically

by Caryl L. Hardy, CSR, a notary public within and for

the County of Cook and State of Illinois, before Deborah

Frank Feinen, Hearing Officer, at the James R. Thompson

Center, 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago,

Illinois, on the 5th day of December, 1997,

A.D.,

commencing at the hour of 10:10 a.m.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A P P E A R A N C E S:

HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-4925

BY: MS. DEBORAH FRANK FEINEN

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jack Burds

Charles King

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Laurel

Kroack

Mr. Christopher Romaine

OTHER AUDIENCE MEMBERS WERE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, BUT

NOT LISTED ON THIS APPEARANCE PAGE.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

I N D E X

PAGES

GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER. . . . . . . . . 4

STATEMENT BY MR. FORT. . . . . . . . . . . . 5

STATEMENT BY MS. KROACK. . . . . . . . . . . 6

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS W. ZOSEL . . . . . . . . 6

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER ROMAINE . . . . . . 9

CLOSING COMMENTS BY HEARING OFFICER. . . . . 18

E X H I B I T S

Marked for

Identification

Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. . . . . . . . . 8

Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. . . . . . . . . 17

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. FEINEN: Good morning and welcome to the

Pollution Control Board hearing in 3M vs. IEPA. This is

a variance petition, PCB 95-90. My name is Deborah

Feinen, and I am the Pollution Control Board hearing

officer in this case. Also here from the board are Jack

Burds, also another hearing officer, and Chuck King,

attorney assistant to

Marili McFawn.

At this time, I would note that there is one member of

the public present. I think everybody else is here

associated with the case. I would go ahead and ask the

attorneys to make an appearance and if you want to

introduce anybody to go ahead and do that.

MR. FORT: Well, I'm Jeff Fort on behalf of 3M here

with Cindy

Faur as counsel for 3M. We are going to

present one witness today, Mr. Thomas

Zosel, who will

testify concerning the petition.

MS. KROACK: And I'm Laurel

Kroack. I'm assistant

counsel for the Illinois EPA division of legal counsel,

bureau of air regulatory unit. We have one witness with

us today, Christopher Romaine, who is manager of the new

source review unit. He will be presenting some narrative

testimony on behalf of the agency in this matter.

MS. FEINEN: And does our member of the public wish

to make an appearance on the record?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. ROGERS: Yes. My name is Pat Rogers. I'm a

township supervisor for the township of Lyons.

MS. FEINEN: Are there any preliminary matters that

we need to discuss before we go ahead and start?

MR. FORT: Well, I don't think we do. As I

mentioned before we got started, we have asserted in our

variance petitions that we are in compliance with the

applicable coding regulations, but after discussing with

the agency and having come to really an agreement on

conditions of this variance, the key aspect of which is

an environmental management system agreement as a

compliance program, we don't see the need to ask the

board to make a decision on that issue, and I think that

was the only issue in the papers that separated us.

So in light of that, it is our view that hopefully the

hearing transcript is going to be readable and

understandable; that we don't see the need for a briefing

on this.

We know this case has been pending for a while. We

are proceeding on several fronts concerning the

compliance program here of the management system

agreement. The agency has regulations out for public

comment, and we are hopeful of moving forward

expeditiously.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

So to the extent the board can accommodate us and take

a look as this sooner rather than later, that would be

very helpful for us.

MS. FEINEN: Okay.

MS. KROACK: I would only like to say that based on

the terms and provisions contained in our recommendation

that the agency supports this variance today.

MS. FEINEN: Okay. So I assume then there are no

opening statements, so you can move right to your

witnesses, or do you have an opening statement?

MR. FORT: I think I just made it.

MS. KROACK: And I have made mine.

MS. FEINEN: Then do you want to call Mr.

Zosel?

MR. FORT: Yes. I would like to call

Mr. Thomas

Zosel as our witness.

MS. FEINEN: Would you please swear the witness?

(Witness sworn.)

THOMAS W. ZOSEL,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,

was examined upon oral interrogatories, and testified as

follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FORT:

Q Would you state your name for the record, please?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A Thomas G.

Zosel.

Q And, Mr.

Zosel, do you have prepared testimony to

present today?

A Yes.

MR. FORT: Madam Hearing Officer, we have circulated

a draft of Mr.

Zosel's testimony previously to the

agency, and I would like leave to have Mr.

Zosel's

testimony put into the transcript as if read.

If Mr. Rogers needs some time to read it, we certainly

can wait while he reads it or make sure that we have a

proper order, but we would like to proceed as if the

testimony has been read.

MS. FEINEN: Mr. Rogers, do you have any objection?

MR. ROGERS: I don't. I had an opportunity to read

it before we started this morning. I have no objection.

MS. FEINEN: And, Mr.

Zosel, this is a true and

accurate copy of your testimony?

MR. ZOSEL: It is.

MS. FEINEN: Then I will go ahead and enter that as

Petitioner's Exhibit 1 as long as there is no objection

from the agency.

MS. KROACK: No objection.

MS. FEINEN: Okay. Then it's entered as if read,

and it will be Petitioner's Exhibit 1.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 marked for

identification, 12-5-97.)

MR. FORT: I have one clarifying question for

Mr. Zosel.

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FORT:

Q Mr.

Zosel, in your testimony, you indicate that we

project an emission baseline and a cap on emissions from

the Bedford Park plant on the order of 2,792 tons per

year?

A That's correct.

Q We also indicate that as a result of the

Environmental Management System Agreement that we are

working towards a strategy with IEPA that there will be a

1,023 tons per season allotment?

A That's correct.

Q Is it your understanding that that seasonal

allotment of allotment trading units reflects the 12

percent reduction required by the Emission Reduction

Marketing System regulation just passed by the board?

A That's correct.

MR. FORT: Thank you. I have nothing further.

MS. FEINEN: Ms.

Kroack?

MS. KROACK: Yes. I would like Mr. Romaine to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

testify. His testimony will be in the form of a

narrative unless there is an objection.

MS. FEINEN: Okay. Then can you please swear in

Mr. Romaine?

(Witness sworn.)

MS. FEINEN: Let's go off the record.

(Whereupon, a discussion was

held off the record.)

MS. FEINEN: Let's go back on the record.

MR. ROMAINE: Good morning. My name is Christopher

Romaine, and I'm here for the agency. I work in the air

permit section. I'm manager of the new source review

unit.

The purpose of my statement is to provide the agency's

technical perspective on the context of the proposed

variance. This variance deals with the moguls and

blenders at 3M's Bedford Park plant in which some of the

coatings applied at this plant are compounded.

In particular, the concern is loss of volatile organic

material or VOM into the work rooms in which the moguls

and blender are located that occur from displacement of

vapors when these units are charged with raw materials.

Emissions of this type are sometimes described in

common usage as fugitive emissions even though they occur

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

within a building.

The VOM emissions resulting from the charging of raw

materials are then mixed with and dispersed in the room

ventilation air and discharged as part of the room

ventilation system. The concern is not with VOM

emissions that occur through stacks or vents that are

directly connected to the mixers. The vents on the

moguls and blenders are very effectively controlled with

reflux condensers.

I think it's necessary to explain while we consider

that these compounding operations are very distinct and

separate from the actual application of coatings, there

are a number of reasons for this. As a practical matter,

3M's situation is unusual as it produces essentially from

scratch its own coatings. Most manufacturing facilities

engaged in coating obtain their coatings from off-site

and only perform final steps needed to prepare the

coatings for application such as adjusting viscosity with

thinner, producing catalysts or other additives, or

correcting for color match.

The manufacture of the coatings generally occurs at

other facilities that specialize in producing certain

types of coatings serving a particular sector or niche.

These coatings may include not only these types of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

manufacturing coatings that 3M uses but also

architectural consumer-type coatings that you and I might

use.

These other facilities are regulated as manufacturers

of coatings, not as

appliers of coatings. For purposes

of compliance, these facilities cannot avail themselves

of the presence of other coating operations elsewhere at

the site. They simply don't have those other coating

operations.

The circumstance of these coating manufacturers are

very different than of individuals applying the

coatings. The coating manufacturers want to minimize

losses of VOM to the greatest extent practical as VOM is

an essential constituent in their coating products. Any

VOM lost in the manufacturing process represents VOM that

is not available to be shipped in product.

In contrast, the individuals applying a coating want

to lose or drive off the VOM in the coating leaving

behind the pigment, resin, or other active ingredients.

In this regard, a key aspect of any coating line is the

provision to dry or cure the coating be it a heated bake

oven or sufficient space to store the coated product as

it air dries.

This can result in very different strategies to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

control VOM emissions from the two types of facilities.

Add-on control is a last result for a coating

manufacturer who would prefer to prevent emissions by

measures such as enclosure, maintaining low temperatures,

avoiding other conditions that increase transfer of VOM

from liquid to vapor. For the coating applicator,

however, add-on control may be the only means to address

the VOM evaporating from coatings during drying and

curing.

This distinction between emission units involved in

manufacturing coatings and applying coatings is reflected

in the board's rules. The Chicago area's coating

application is specifically regulated under Part 218,

Subpart F for units that have been addressed by control

technology guidelines by U.S. EPA and under Subpart PP

for units which U.S. EPA has not addressed control

technique guidelines.

The regulated entity is labeled a coating line. This

term is defined in 35 Illinois Administrative Code

211.1230 as an operation consisting of one or more

applicators in associated drying equipment where a

coating is applied dried and/or cured.

Part 218 also has separate requirements for coating

manufacturers including Subpart AA for manufacture of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

paint and ink and Subpart QQ for miscellaneous

formulation manufacturing processing plants.

Paint manufacturing is defined at Section 211.450 as a

source that mixes, blends, or compounds, shellacs,

varnishes, stains or other pigmented coatings. These

distinctions can be tracked back to US EPA's guidance, in

particular the RACT control technique guideline for paper

coating which is the classification of 3M's coating

operations. It only addresses the coating application

process, describes various types of coating applicators

and types of control strategies that can be applied to

reduce VOM emissions from these operations. It does not

address, however, the production of coatings.

Now, as I have explained the displacement losses from

charging mixing equipment and compounding operation are

most economically controlled by pollution prevention

techniques that minimize the generation and loss of

vapors. This is exactly what 3M has done for its

compounding operations.

Application of add-on control devices beyond the

pollution prevention measures can vary in difficulty

depending on the circumstances. Certainly, it is far

easier if the compounding equipment and the building in

which they are located were designed for operation with

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

an add-on control device, which is not the case for 3M.

Based on my

knowledged of 3M's plant layout and

familiarity with compounding operations, a control device

for 3M's compounding equipment would be costly to install

and expensive to operate in comparison with the amount of

VOM control because of the amount of air that the control

device would have to handle.

Without detailed information about the likely design

of such control system, we cannot accurately estimate the

cost-effectiveness of such a system. We are confident,

however, that the cost would exceed what the board has

previously considered reasonably available control

technique or RACT.

In addition, it is important to note that the US EPA

has not prepared a control technology guideline defining

reasonably available control technique for compounding

equipment. Rather, this equipment is regulated by one of

Illinois so-called generic rules for non-control

technique guideline operations, Subpart QQ as I

previously mentioned.

These rules only require that control systems achieve

81 percent overall control for VOM. This assumes, of

course, that 3M would be unsuccessful if it pursued a

site-specific rule or adjusted standard for this

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

equipment as an alternative to add-on control.

But even if an ad-on control system were installed, it

would not necessarily eliminate all of the VOM emissions

from compounding. However, under the strategy now

proposed by 3M for its environmental management system

agreement, 3M would provide reductions equal to 100

percent of the VOM emissions from the compounding

operations.

Of equal or greater importance under 3M's

environmental management systems strategy, 3M will be

able to use the resources which it would have otherwise

expended for such a control system to reduce VOM

emissions elsewhere at the facility much more

productively further controlling VOM emissions from the

coating lines themselves which generate the overwhelming

amount of the facility's emissions.

3M will also be held accountable for its efforts

during the term of the environmental management system

agreement in reducing its overall VOM emissions with

oversight by both the agency and a stakeholders group.

In these circumstances, it is preferable to grant 3M a

variance for its compounding equipment and allow 3M to

pursue an environmental management system agreement. The

agency cannot point to an established methodology for

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

further control of the compounding equipment such as

applying afterburners to coating lines or use of low-VOM

inks, which is in common usage as reflected in a control

technique guideline document or other US EPA study.

Given the magnitude of emission reductions now needed

for attainment of the ozone air quality standard in the

Chicago area, Illinois needs to ensure to the greatest

extent practical that resources are applied to maximize

the overall reduction that is achieved. The

environmental management system agreement will allow 3M

an opportunity to demonstrate what it can achieve in

exchange for being freed from the constraint of

conventional command and control rules for these

compounding operations, which represent a small fraction

of the facility's total emissions.

Finally, if 3M is unsuccessful, control of the

compounding equipment can always be revisited.

That concludes my prepared remarks.

MS. FEINEN: Do you have any questions for your

witness?

MS. KROACK: I have none.

MS. FEINEN: Okay. Does the other side?

MR. FORT: No.

MS. FEINEN: Anything further?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. KROACK: Yes. We received a letter by fax

yesterday and I received an original this morning from

Lyons' supervisor Patrick Rogers, who is with us today.

The letter is also signed by representative Eileen Lyons

of the 47th District and Senator Christine -- I hope I

pronounce this properly --

Radogno, R-a-d-o-g-n-o, of the

24th District supporting this variance, and I would like

to introduce that into evidence at this time.

MS. FEINEN: Would you like that to be a

respondent's exhibit or a joint exhibit?

MS. KROACK: Either way. Jeff?

MR. FORT: I have just seen it this morning, but it

can be however you would like to number it.

MS. FEINEN: I will just mark it as a Respondent's

Exhibit 1.

(Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 marked for

identification, 12-5-97.)

MS. FEINEN: Is there anything further?

MR. FORT: No.

MS. FEINEN: I know the parties have -- and I don't

know if this is on the record or not, but the parties

have agreed to waive briefs, and as far as issues of

credibility, I found both witnesses to be credible, so

there is not a problem with that for the board.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Therefore, the record will be closed at the conclusion

of this hearing, and the board will be able to begin its

deliberation.

Is there anything further anyone wants to add?

MS. KROACK: I just want to make clear one last time

that 3M and the agency have agreed that the question of

whether the coating operation -- whether the compounding

operation is part of the coating process, we have agreed

that that issue does not need to be addressed as part of

this variance, so we would like the board to not consider

the argument for or against in reaching its

deliberation. That's the basis under which we would

waive posthearing briefs.

MR. FORT: Yes.

MS. FEINEN: And does either side have a closing

statement?

MS. KROACK: I do not.

MS. FEINEN: Okay. Then this hearing is adjourned.

Thank you all for coming.

(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at

10:40 a.m.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

COUNTY OF COOK )

I, CARYL L. HARDY, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

doing business in the County of Cook and State of

Illinois, do hereby certify that I reported in machine

shorthand the proceedings at the hearing of the

above-entitled cause.

I further certify that the foregoing is a true

and correct transcript of said proceedings as appears

from the stenographic notes so taken and transcribed by

me.

CSR No. 084-003896

Subscribed to and sworn to

before me this _____ day

of ________________, 1997.

___________________________

Notary Public

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292