BEFORE THE

~OLBOAR~R2

2

2003

IN

THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF

ILLIINOIS

01/utIon control Board

PETITION

OF

AS

xx-xxx

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

(Adjusted

Standard

-

X)

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

FROM 35

III. Adm. Code

218.182

)

NOTICE OF

FILING

PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE that

I

have today filed with the

Office of the

Clerk of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

the

PETITION

OF

ARGONNE

NATIONAL

LABORATORY

FOR

AN ADJUSTED

STANDARD

FROM

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

218.182,

a copy of which

is

herewith served

upon you.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE ALSO that the above-referenced PETITION has been

printed on

recycled

paper meeting

the terms of The Pollution

Control

Board’s

regulation

on that subject.

For THE

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO:

William

D.

Luck

Assistant General Counsel

Argonne National Laboratory

Operated by The University of Chicago

For the

U.S. Department of Energy

9700 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne,

Illinois 60439

(630) 252-7300

2~~v3

Date

)

)

)

)

---

~nrii~

h

Il

1\

~ECEjV~j~

I~\

CLERrcS

~

CONTROL BOARD

~PR

2

2

2003

STATE OF /LLINOIS

IN THE

MATTER OF:

)

Pollutjo~Control Board

PETITION

OF

)

AS xx-xxx

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

)

(Adjusted

Standard

-

X)

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

FROM 35

III. Adm. Code

218.182

)

APPEARANCE

I

hereby

file

my

appearance

in

this

proceeding,

on

behalf

of

the

U.S.

Department of Energy.

For U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:

L~

k)a~LL

Oloria Walach

Counsel

U..S.

Department of Energy

9800 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne,

Illinois 60439

(630) 252-2036

i~/

7—L~

Date

---

RECE1~VED

CLERR’S ~

1\PR

2

2

2003

BEFORE TH~

BOARD

STATE

OF ILUNOIS

IN

THE MATTER OF:

)

Pollution

Control Board

PETITION OF

)

AS xx-xxx

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

)

(Adjusted Standard

-

X)

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

FROM 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 218.182

)

APPEARANCE

I

hereby file my appearance

in

this proceeding,

on behalf of The

University of

Chicago.

For THE

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO:

William

D.

Luck

Assistant General Counsel

Argonne National Laboratory

Operated by The University of Chicago

For the

U.S.

Department of Energy

9700 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne, Illinois 60439

(630) 252-7300

—

Date

---

(~fl~rZ~r\

0

R

RECE~VE~

~j ~0j

liii ~ II I~\

ii

/A\

II

CLER!’s

~

BEFORE

T~L~

~

~j~~CONTROL

BOARD

~4PR

22

2003

IN

THE MATTER OF:

)

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

)

Pollution

Control Board

PETITION OF

)

AS xx-xxx

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

)

(Adjusted Standard

-

X)

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

FROM

35

III. Adm. Code

218.182

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,

the undersigned, certify that

I

have served the original and nine (9) duplicate

copies of the attached PETITION OF ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM

35111. Adm.

Code 218.182, upon the

following person, by depositing

it with

FEDERAL EXPRESS on this date:

Pollution Control Board

Attention: Clerk

100 W. Randolph Street

James R.

Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

Chicago,

Illinois 60601-3218

I further certify that I have served one (1) copy of the attached PETITION OF

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

FROM 35

Ill. Adm. Code

218.182 upon the following person, by depositing it

with FEDERAL EXPRESS on this date:

Rachel Doctors

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

For THE UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGO:

William D.

Luck

Assistant General Counsel

Argonne National Laboratory

Operated

by The University of Chicago

For the

U.S. Department of Energy

9700 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne, Illinois 60439

(630) 252-7300

Date

---

IV E

—

nr~,

~

/~ ~

CL~RK’SOFP/CE

BEFORE THE IL~fr1Ic~

~L1

1J~\Of~fJTROL

BOARD

IN THE

MATTER OF:

Li

~ ~

L~

~j

~iLn~\

L~j

~

3

STATE OF ILLINOIS

o

u

on

ontrolB

d

PETITION OF

)

AS xx-xxx

00~

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

)

(Adjusted Standard

-

X)

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

FROM

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

218.182

)

Pursuant

to

Section

28.1

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Act

and

35

III.

Adm.

Code

Part

104,

Subpart

D,

Argonne

National

Laboratory,

as

represented

by

the

United

States

Department

of

Energy

and

The

University

of

Chicago,

respectfully submits this petition for an

adjusted standard from

35

III. Adm.

Code

218.182.

Argonne

National

Laboratory

is

a

government-owned,

contractor-operated

facility,

owned

by the

United States

Department of Energy

and operated

by The

University

of

Chicago

under

a

Prime

Contract

between

the

parties.

Argonne

National

Laboratory occupies

a

1,500-acre site

in

DuPage County, Illinois,

and

is

located

about 27

miles

southwest of downtown

Chicago.

It

is

north of the

Des

Plaines

River valley,

south of Interstate

Highway 55,

west of Illinois Highway

83,

and east of Lemont Road.

Argonne

National

Laboratory

conducts

broad

programs

of

fundamental

and

applied

research

in

the

physical,

biomedical,

and

environmental

sciences

and

serves

as

major

center

of

energy

research

and

development.

About

120

buildings

are located

on the

site,

30 of which

house either administrative

offices

or

major

research

programs.

The

facility

is

surrounded

by

the

2,240-acre

Waterfall

Glen

Forest

Preserve,

owned

by the

DuPage

County

Forest

Preserve

District.

The information

in this petition

is presented

in sections organized

in conformance

with

the petition content requirements of 35

III. Adm. Code

104.406,

as follows:

a.

Description

Of

Reçjulation

From

Which

Adjusted

Standard

Is

Souciht.

Petitioner

Argonne

National

Laboratory

(Argonne)

seeks

an

adjusted

standard from

35

III. Adm. Code

218.182,

Cold Cleaning, effective date June

9,

1997

(hereafter

also

referred

to

in

this

petition

as

the

regulation),

a

regulation

of

general

applicability,

which

specifies,

among

other

requirements,

that

after

March

15,

2001,

no

person

in

the

Chicago

ozone

non-attainment area

may

operate

a

cold

cleaning

degreaser with

a solvent

vapor

pressure

which

exceeds

1.0

mm

Hg

(0.019

psi)

measured

at 20°C

(68°F).

Petitioner Argonne

seeks

an

adjusted

standard to exempt

it from

otherwise

applicable

requirements

of

the

regulation,

including

the

vapor

pressure

requirements

of

Section

218.182(c),

as

well

as

the

associated

equipment

---

requirements

of Section 218.182(b),

and

the

recordkeeping

requirements of

Section

218.182(d),

for

.those

cold

cleaning

applications

involving

the

preparation

of sample

material

and

associated

apparatus used

for

research

and

development’testing

and

analysis

activities

where

(1) the

research and

development-related

cold

cleaning

activities

include,

but

are

not

limited

to,

washing and

rinsing

slides, drying

glassware,

sample

preparation, specimen

cleaning,

gel

stain/de-staining,

membrane

rinsing,

and

the cleaning

of small

parts and equipment and the preparation of sample materials and associated

apparatus for

testing

and

(2) solvents

meeting the vapor pressure limit of the

cited

regulation

cannot

be

used

without

compromising

the

quality

of

the

equipment being used or the validity of research results.

b.

Reason

For Promulgation

Of Regulation.

The

regulation

derives from

requirements of the Clean Air Act (42

USC 7401

et seq.),

although

it

is

not specifically directed

by that statute.

Because

the

Chicago

metropolitan

region was

designated

an

ozone

non-attainment

area

under

the

1990

amendments

to

the

Clean Air

Act,

Illinois

has

instituted

a

number of measures, including

the

regulation

at issue, as part of its

program

to bring the

region into attainment as required by the Clean Air Act.

On

March

4,

1997,

a

representative of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(IEPA),

in

presenting to the

Pollution Control Board the

proposal for

the

rulemaking

that

resulted

in

the

regulation

at

issue,

declared

that

“the

rulemaking

is

being

submitted to the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board to ratify

Illinois’

commitment

under the

Clean

Air Act to

reduce

emissions of volatile

organic material

by three

percent each

year from

1990

baseline

levels

until

attainment is reached.” (Docket R97-24 (Rulemaking), Transcript at Page

10)

The

rulemaking record makes

clear that while the rate of progress provisions

are mandated by the Clean Air Act, the

regulation

itself is

not.

Modeled after

a

similar

State

of

Maryland

provision,

the

regulation

was

designed

as

a

means to

achieve the

rate of progress

being

sought,

but neither

its

subject

matter

nor

its

terms

are

required

by

the

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

c.

Justification For Adjusted Standard Specified In The Regulation

(Or Statement That No Justification

Is

Specified).

The

regulation

does

not

specify

any

level

of justification

for

obtaining

an

adjusted

standard.

In

such

a circumstance,

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

104.406,

the

regulation

that sets

forth

the

requirements

for the

contents

of a

petition for

adjusted standard,

in Paragraph

(c)

directs one to 35

III. Adm.

Code

104.426

for the

applicable justification requirements.

Specifically,

Section

104.426(a)

addresses the

showing

required

for

a

petitioner to

meet the

burden

of proof

to

justify

an

adjusted

standard

consistent

with

Section

28.1

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Act.

The four factors

set forth

in

35

III. Adm. Code

104.426(a) are discussed

in Section

h. of this petition.

2

---

d.

Description

Of

Nature

Of

Petitioner’s

Activity

That

Is

The

Subiect

Of

The

Proposed Adjusted Standard.

Argonne

National

Laboratory,

9700

S.

Cass

Avenue,

Argonne,

Illinois,

60439,

is

a United States

Government-owned,

contractor-operated

research

and

development

facility

located

on

a

1,500

acre

site

in

DuPage

County,

Illinois, approximately 27 miles’southwest of downtown Chicago and 24 miles

due west of Lake Michigan.

The facility

is surrounded

by the 2,240 acre Waterfall Glen

Forest Preserve,

owned

by

the

DuPage

County

Forest

Preserve

District.

Much

of

the

Waterfall Glen Forest Preserve was

part of the Argonne site until 1973, when

it

was

deeded

to the

DuPage

County

Forest

Preserve

District

for use

as

a

public

recreational

area,

nature

preserve,

and

demonstration

forest.

The

Laboratory

is

operated for

the

United

States

Department of

Energy

by The

University of Chicago, under Prime Contract

No. W-31-109-ENG-38.

The

University

of

Chicago

has

been

the

management

and

operating

contractor of Argonne National Laboratory from

its

inception

at

its current site

in

1946,

and prior

to that was

the contractor with

the

Manhattan

District for

the

project

at

the

University

campus during

World War

II

that

included

the

Fermi

experiment,

conducted

under

the

stands

of

the

football

field,

that

ushered

in

the

nuclear

age.

Today

Argonne

is

a

multiprogram

basic

research and development laboratory employing

approximately 3,200 people

at the DuPage County,

Illinois

site

(and approximately 1,300 more at another

site near Idaho Falls,

Idaho).

Argonne

conducts

a

broad

program

of

research

in

the

basic

energy

and

related

sciences

(physical,

chemical,

material,

computer,

nuclear,

biomedical,

and

environmental)

and

serves

as

an

important

engineering

center for the

study of nuclear and

nonnuclear energy sources.

Other areas

of

research

are

basic

biological

research,

heavy-ion

research

into

the

properties of super-heavy elements, fundamental coal chemistry studies, the

immobilization

of

radioactive waste products for safe

disposal,

fundamental

studies

of advanced

computers, and the

development of chips for

the

rapid

assay

of

gene

composition.

Environmental

research

studies

include

the

biological

activity

of

mutagens

and

carcinogens,

characterization

and

monitoring of energy-related

pollutants,

and new technologies for cleaning

up

environmental contaminants.

Recent work at Argonne

also has focused

on

supporting

government

anti-terrorism

efforts

through

the

development

of

biological,

chemical, and nuclear detection systems.

Argonne’s

IEPA air pollution control

site identification

number

is 043802AAA.

The

site’s

major

source

of

emissions

is

the

Central

Heating

Plant

that

consists

of five

boilers.

Other

sources

of emissions

include

a

number

of

underground

gasoline

storage

tanks,

an

engine

test

facility,

bulking

operations of liquid wastes generated

by research

activities, and

a number of

diesel

generators.

The

site

applied

for

a

permit

pursuant to

Title V of the

3

---

Clean Air Act on

September

13,

1995;

the

Title V

permit (#95090195)

was

issued on April

3, 2001.

With

respect

to

cold

cleaning

at

Argonne,

many types

of

activities

are

in

compliance

with

the

vapor

pressure

limit

of

the

current

regulation.

For

example,

the

Laboratory

does

have

shops

that

perform

conventional

machining

operations.

For

these

activities,

Argonne

does

employ

cold

cleaning

solvents

that

meet

the

vapor

limitation

of

35

III.

Adm.

Code

218.182(c)(2)(B).

Other small parts degreasers also are operated around the

site

using

solvents that are

in compliance with

the regulation.

With

respect to

pollution

control,

all

of the

requirements of Section 218.182

are followed for

these types of operations.

However,

some

research

applications

involve

equipment

(e.g.,

x-ray

equipment,

vacuum

systems,

and

analytical

instrumentation

for

research

at

the

atomic

and

sub-atomic

levels)

that

requires

sample

surface

areas

completely free of any residual contamination.

This necessitates the

use of a

number

of

common

laboratory

solvents,

such

as

methanol,

ethanol,

isopropanol,

hexane,

and

toluene,

all

of

which

have

vapor

pressures

that

exceed the

limitation

of the

regulation.

For

a

number

of reasons,

the

cold

cleaning

activities

associated

with

these

research

applications

cannot

be

accomplished

in

such

a

manner

as

to

take

advantage

of

any

existing

exemption from the

regulation.

With

respect

to

the

potential

use

of

wipe

cleaning,

which

specifically

is

excluded

from

the

definition of

cold

cleaning

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

Part

211

(and

which definition

is made applicable to

35

III. Adm.

Code

Part 218 by 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

218.104),

in

connection

with

sample

preparation,

in

many

cases

this approach

cannot be

used

in sample preparation

applications

due

to problems resulting

from

low levels of particulate

residue, which

could

have

an

adverse

effect

on

analytical

results.

For

example,

the

preparation

of

various

types

of

metal

samples

prior

to

analysis

with

electronic

instrumentation often requires cutting and cleaning.

In some cases methanol

or

isopropanol

is

used

to

clean

the

cutting

blade

during

cutting

operations.

Various

types

of

alcohol

or

hexane

also

are

used

to

decontaminate

radiological

samples

and

to

remove

lubricants

from

sample

materials

after

grinding

and

polishing.

Methanol

and

ethanol

also

are

used

to

clean

samples

in preparation for x-ray scattering measurements.

The method used

for

sample

cutting

and

sample

preparation

can

be

either

spraying

or

immersion

in

milliliter

volumes

of

solvent.

It

is

noted

that

the

analytical

activity

itself

is

categorized

in

the

Argonne

Title

V

permit

as

bench

scale

research which

is considered to be an insignificant activity.

Also with respect to the

potential use of wipe cleaning

in sample preparation,

wipe

cleaning

often

cannot

be

used

to

clean

small

parts

and

equipment

associated

with

the preparation of sample materials for testing

and analysis,

again

because

of the

problem of contamination

caused by residue from

the

wipe

cleaning

process.

For example,

the experimental

use of a number

of

particle

accelerators,

such

as

the

Argonne

Tandem

Linac

Accelerator

4

---

System

(ATLAS),

Intense Pulsed

Neutron Source

(IPNS), and the Advanced

Photon

Source

(APS),

requires that such

items as beam

line conduits (which

are

essentially metal tubes)

and associated

vacuum pumping

equipment be

cleaned so that a state of high vacuum can be maintained.

Solvents that can

evaporate

with

zero

residue

must

be

employed

on

such

systems

because

any

residual contamination can

cause out-gassing that

can destroy vacuum

conditions

and

thereby

affect

research

results.

The

methods

used

for

preparation

of

vacuum

equipment

can

include

immersion,

brushing,

and

spraying.

In

other

instances

wipe

cleaning

of

parts

or

equipment

is

not

feasible

because

the

presence

of

small

confined

areas

or

delicate

parts

precludes that approach.

With

respect to

the

potential

use of the

Section

218.182(f)

exemption

from

the

Section

218.182

requirements

for

the

cold

cleaning

of

electronic

components, although certain of the equipment employed

in

the Laboratory’s

testing

and

analysis

activities

would

be

considered

to

be

electronic

components,

that

is

not true

of all

parts

and

equipment associated

with

the

testing and analysis process,

and certainly the

research samples themselves

cannot be considered as electronic components.

Attached as Exhibit

2

is

a

summary

by building of Argonne

research-related

cold

cleaning

activities,

involving

preparation

of

sample

materials

and

associated apparatus for testing

and analysis,

which would

be encompassed

by the requested adjusted standard.

e.

Efforts

Necessary

For

Compliance

With

The

Regulation

Of

General

Applicability.

Argonne

has

made

a concerted

effort

since

1998 to

identify

and

substitute

replacement

solvents

that would

comply

with

the

Section

218.182(c)

vapor

pressure standard for the entire range of its

activities; however, there remain

cases where

acceptable substitutes

have

not

been

found.

Organic solvent

substitutes with

an acceptable vapor pressure

can leave

residues which can

compromise

the

integrity

of

fabricated

items

and

the

quality

of

research

results.

This

is

particularly

true

for

materials

being

handled

in

a

vacuum

environment.

In addition, wiping is not an option

because of the

residue that

would

be

left

by

the

wiping

cloth

or

other

material.

As

a

consequence,

meeting

the

regulatory requirements for

low vapor

pressure

solvents

would

jeopardize a

number of particular Argonne

research

programs,

and

thereby,

the

research and development mission ofthe Laboratory.

Acetone,

which

is

a

solvent

that

is

not

categorized

as

a

volatile

organic

material

due to

its

negligible

photochemical

activity,

has

been

used

as

an

acceptable substitute in some applications.

However,

the very low flashpoint

of acetone

makes this solvent

a

potential fire

hazard, and for safety reasons

it cannot be substituted

in

all

cold cleaning applications.

Because the

issue

of compliance

with

the current Section

218.182(c)

vapor

pressure

standard

is

a

quality

control

issue

where

there

are

no

feasible

5

---

alternatives,

rather than

an issue of the cost of compliance, this petition does

not discuss compliance alternatives or their corresponding

costs.

The

difficulty

of

complying

with

the

equipment

requirements

of

Section

218.182(b)

in

the

case

of cold

cleaning

involving

research

samples

is

that

cold

cleaning

of

research

samples

is

not conducted

in equipment

designed

for degreasing operations.

For example,

small laboratory beakers containing

milliliter volumes

of solvent

often

are

employed,

and

they do

not

meet

the

equipment

requirements

specified

in

Section

218.182(b).

Requirements

such

as

a

permanent

conspicuous

label,

as

set

forth

in

Section

218.182(b)(4),

would

serve

little

purpose

for

a

beaker

used

only

for

short

periods

of time

for

sample

cleaning

and

then

subsequently

used

in

other

laboratory activities.

With

respect

to

the

recordkeeping

requirements

in

Section

218.182(d),

Argonne

does

track

chemical

usage

on

a

sitewide

basis

using

a

computerized

database known as the Chemical Management System (CMS).

The

CMS

can

indirectly track

by Chemical

Abstract

Service

(CAS)

number

the

types

of

laboratory

solvents

used

in

research-related

cold

cleaning

activities.

However, the

CMS tracks

total usage,

rather than

usage by specific activity.

For example,

a one

liter bottle of isopropanol

may have

a total annual

usage

of

600

milliliters,

which

could

include

a

variety

of

research

applications

including,

but

not limited to, cold cleaning.

To isolate the

usage dedicated to

research

sample

cold

cleaning

activities

would

necessitate

individual

researchers keeping

a

manual

record of amounts

used.

Argonne does not

believe

that

such

a

burdensome

procedure

would

be

practical,

due

to

the

large

number of ever-changing

research

activities,

many of which are bench

scale

in size

and ordinarily involve only small amounts of organic solvents.

f.

Description Of The Proposed Adiusted

Standard.

Argonne proposes the following adjusted standard,

to exempt the

Laboratory

from

the

applicable vapor pressure and

other associated

requirements of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 218.182 for the

specified

cold

cleaning activities conducted

at

the

Laboratory:

The

adjusted

standard

from

35

III.

Adm.

Code

218.182 applies to

Argonne

National

Laboratory,

a

research

laboratory

located

near

Waterfall

Glen

Forest

Preserve,

in

DuPage

County,

Illinois.

The

requirements

of

this

adjusted

standard

shall

apply

only

to

cold

cleaning

involving

the

preparation

of

sample

materials

and

associated

apparatus

used

for

research

and

development testing

and analysis

activities.

These activities are subject to the following

requirements.

(1)

The

research

and

development

related

cleaning

activities

include, but

are not

limited to,

washing and

rinsing slides, drying

6

---

glassware,

sample preparation,

specimen

cleaning,

gel stain/de-

staining,

membrane rinsing,

and

the

cleaning

of small

parts and

equipment

associated

with

the

preparation

of

sample

materials for testing

and analysis.

(2)

The

requirements of this

adjusted standard

do

not apply where

solvents

meeting

the

vapor pressure

limits of 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

218.182

can

be

used

without

compromising

the

quality

of

the

equipment being used or the validity of research results.

As

indicated

in

Section

h. of this

petition,

Argonne

submits that

the

quality

control

issues

associated

with

its

research

and

development

cleaning

activities are highly similar to those associated with

the cleaning of electronic

components,

for which

35

III. Adm.

Code

218.182(f)

provides

an

exemption

from

the

otherwise

applicable vapor pressure

limit.

The

proposed

adjusted

standard

would

achieve

for

Argonne’s

research

and

development cleaning

activities a

result similar to what the

regulation

already provides for electronic

component cleaning activities.

g.

Quantitative

And

Qualitative

Description

Of

Impact

On

Environment,

Comparing

Compliance

With

Standard

To

Compliance

With

Proposed

Adjusted Standard.

While

it

obviously would

be

difficult to

measure,

as

indicated

in

Section

e.

above,

the

qualitative and

quantitative impact

on Argonne’s

work,

were

it

to

have

to comply with

the regulation’s vapor pressure limitation, nevertheless it

is clear that the

Laboratory

would experience

a significant inability to conduct

research

programs important to

its

research

and development mission.

The

anticipated impact on the environment, were the proposed adjusted standard

to

apply,

is

somewhat

difficult

to

quantify.

However,

for

the

reasons

discussed in

this

Section g.,

it

is believed that the emissions

associated

with

the

cold

cleaning

activities

under the

proposed

adjusted

standard would

be

minimal,

on the

order of no more than approximately one ton per year.

In

most individual applications,

the amount of solvent

not meeting the current

vapor pressure

limit that would be

used

under the circumstances set forth

in

Section

f.

of this petition would be a

small

amount.

Most often the amount of

solvent that would

be

employed

by Argonne’s

technically qualified

research

personnel,

to

be

utilized

to

prepare

samples

or

apparatus for research

and

development

purposes,

would

be

a

bench

scale

research

quantity,

ranging

from

a few milliliters up to a

liter.

As

a measure of comparison, under 35

IAC

201 .210(b)(11),

such

an

amount

of solvent

used

in

conjunction

with

bench

scale laboratory equipment,

in

a

connection

other than

cold

cleaning,

would

be considered to be an insignificant activity or emission

level.

With

respect to the cumulative

impact of the expected

individual applications,

determining

a

total

annual

usage

of

solvents

for

Argonne

research

and

development

cold

cleaning

applications

within

the

scope

of

the

proposed

adjusted standard

is difficult due to the changing nature of research activities,

7

---

the

number

of

researchers

involved,

and

the

small

amounts

of

solvent

ordinarily

used

in

cleaning

applications.

Based

on

the

best

available

information

from

last

year,

it

is

estimated

that

no

more

than

200

gallons

(approximately

1500

pounds)

was

employed for that purpose.

Usage

would

vary

depending

upon

the

type

of research

conducted

during

the

year,

the

nature of the equipment employed, and whether solvents meeting the current

vapor

pressure

limit

could

be

used

without

adverse

application

effects.

Nevertheless,

a

table

indicating estimated

annual

usage for various organic

solvents

used

in

cold

cleaning

applications

at Argonne for

the period

1999-

2001,

which

is

attached

as

Exhibit

3,

shows

that

the

level

of

usage

has

remained fairly constant at this

indicated

level.

In

any event,

the

amount

of solvents

used

annually

that would

not

comply

with

the

current

regulation

would

be

expected

to

be

in

the

same

order

of

magnitude as the amount used

annually for laboratory activity categorized as

insignificant pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm. Code

201 .210(b)(1 1).

Accordingly

the

impact

of

these

emissions

on

the

VOM

inventory

in

the

Chicago metropolitan ozone non-attainment area would be negligible.

h.

Justification For Adjusted

Standard.

The

applicable

regulation

does

not

specify

any

level

of

justification

for

obtaining

an

adjusted

standard.

In

such a

circumstance,

35

III.

Adm.

Code

104.406, the

regulation

that sets forth

the requirements for the contents of a

petition

for

adjusted

standard,

in

Paragraph

(c)

directs one

to

35

III.

Adm.

Code

104.426

for

the

applicable

justification

requirements.

Specifically,

Section

104.426(a)

addresses

the

showing

required

by

a

petitioner to

meet

the

burden of

proof to justify

an

adjusted

standard

consistent

with

Section

28.1

of the

Illinois Environmental

Protection Act.

Accordingly, the four factors

set forth

in that regulation

are discussed

in

this Section

h. of the petition.

The

first two of the four factors are discussed together.

1.

Factors

Relating

To

The

Petitioner

Are

Substantially

And

Significantly Different From The Factors

Relied On

By The Board

In

Adopting the Regulation.

2.

The Existence Of These Factors Justifies An Adlusted Standard.

The

transcript of the

Board’s

March

4,

1997 rulemaking

hearing

in

consideration

of

the

regulation

at

issue

(Docket

R97-24

(Rulemaking))

makes

clear

that

Petitioner

Argonne’s

concerns,

regarding restrictions on the

use of certain

types of solvents for cold

cleaning

in

research

and

development

applications,

were

not

among the issues before the Board.

Christina Archer,

in

making the

IEPA presentation of its

rulemaking

proposal

to

the

Board,

stated

that

the

proposal

was

being

introduced to satisfy

Illinois’

commitment under the Clean Air Act to

reduce emissions of volatile organic material by three percent each

8

---

year

from

1990

baseline

levels

until

attainment

is

reached.

(Transcript

at

Page

7)

She

indicated

that

the

cold

cleaning

proposal

was

patterned after

a similar

rule

in

Maryland

(Transcript

at

Page 9)

and “is

intended

to

cover the

manufacturers,

suppliers,

and

recyclers

of solvent

used

in

cold

cleaning

degreasing

as

well

as the

users of such solvent

such

asi

auto

repair and

refinishing

and

metal

finishing

shops.”

(Transcript

at

Page

10,

emphasis

added)

That

this

was

the

intended

universe

of

solvent

users

being

considered, to the exclusion of an entity such as Argonne, also was

emphasized

by other IEPA statements and

actions.

Mike

Rogers,

an

Environmental

Protection

Specialist

in

the

Air Quality

Planning

Section

of

IEPA’s

Bureau

of

Air,

who

was

by

his

own

account

involved

in

the

development

of

the

proposed

regulation

and

the

person

responsible

for

preparing

the

technical

support

document

(see Transcript at Page

15), also addressed the

Board at the

March

4,

1997 rulemaking hearing.

Mr.

Rogers stated that “cold

cleaning

degreasing

takes

place

at

auto

repair

shops,

car

dealerships,

marine

shops

-

-excuse

me

-

-

machine

shops,

and

other

metal

fabrication

and

manufacturing

businesses.”

(Transcript

at

Pages

16-17,

emphasis added)

In

addition,

he

said that IEPA “sought and

incorporated

the

input

of

numerous

parties

involved

in

solvent

cleaning.

The Illinois

EPA

sent out

copies

of the

rule proposed

to

over

20

persons

representing

individual

businesses,

solvent

suppliers,

degreasing

equipment

manufacturers,

and

industrial

trade associations.”

(Transcript at Page 23)

In

other words,

as

regards

the

users of solvents,

the focus

of the

proposed

rule was

on retail businesses engaging in

repetitive, high-

volume,

cold

cleaning

operations.

There

is

no

mention

in

the

transcript

of

cold

cleaning

applications

for

research

and

development

purposes,

such

as

those

conducted

by

Petitioner

Argonne,

as set forth

in

greater

detail

in

Sections

d.

and

e. of this

petition, and

IEPA did

not seek out the views of entities engaged

in

such activities.

It

is

important to

note, however,

that the

IEPA and

the

Board were

sufficiently flexible to recognize

the

need for

an exception

from the

general

rule in

a circumstance where lower vapor pressure solvents

would

not

perform

with

the

necessary

measure

of

quality

in

a

particular

type

of

application.

Specifically,

the

proposal

(and

indeed,

the final

rule as

adopted) exempted

from

the

cold

cleaning

vapor pressure requirement the

cleaning

of electronic components.

(See 35

III. Adm.

Code

218.182(f))

Mr. Rogers listed the exemption

for

cleaning

electronic

components

as

an

example

of

an

issue

raised

during

the

rule

development

process

that

resulted

in

a

modification to the

rule as it eventually was proposed.

(Transcript at

Page

23)

Providing

the

rationale

for

the

IEPA

determination

to

9

---

exempt

electronic

component

cleaning

from

the

proposal,

Ms.

Archer

stated

that

“the

exclusion

for

electronic

components

is

being

included

in

the

proposal

due

to

concerns

raised

by several

parties that solvents with low vapor pressures would not adequately

clean

such

components.”

(Transcript

at

Pages

9-10,

emphasis

added)

In

this

respect

the

proposal

also

mirrored

the

Maryland

rule. (Transcript at Page

10)

It

is

also

important to

note

that

in

establishing

the

exemption

for

cleaning

electronic

components,

the

regulation

places

no

volumetric or other quantitative limitations

on

how the

cleaning will

be

conducted.

Neither

does

the

regulation

place

any

qualitative

limitation

on how the cleaning should

be conducted.

Although

the

issue

of cold

cleaning

in

research

and

development

applications

was

not

considered

by

IEPA

or

the

Board

in

the

context of the

rulemaking

proceeding,

Petitioner Argonne submits

that the quality control

issues associated

with

such

applications are

highly similar

to

those

associated

with

the

cleaning

of

electronic

components.

For

that

reason,

Argonne

submits

that

these

two

types

of cleaning

activities should

be

regulated similarly.

Granting

this

petition

will

achieve

a

result

similar to

the

exemption

already

recognized

by

the

applicable

regulation

for

the

cleaning

of

electronic components.

3.

The

Requested

Standard

Will

Not

Result

In

Environmental

Or

Health

Effects

Substantially

And

Significantly

More

Adverse

Than

The Effects Under The Regulation.

As discussed in Section

g. of this petition, the environmental impact

of the

requested

standard

is expected

to

be

minimal.

Any health

effects would

be expected to be comparable to those for the

same

solvents

used

for

other

routine

research

and

development

laboratory activities.

In

addition,

when

compared

with

the

environmental

and

health

effects

that

would

correspond

to

employing

solvents

for

wipe

cleaning,

which

is

authorized

by

the

regulation

(but would

not

be

suitable for many Argonne

research and

development purposes,

as

discussed in

Sections d.

and

e. of this petition),

the

impacts of the

requested

adjusted

standard

are

certainly

not more

adverse

than

those already allowable under the

regulation.

4.

The Adjusted

Standard

Is

Consistent With

Any Applicable

Federal

Law.

As

indicated

in

the discussion

in Section

b.

of this

petition,

and

in

Items

1.

and

2.

in

this

Section

h.

of this

petition,

the

applicable

regulation

was

modeled

on

a

similar State

of Maryland

regulation,

10

---

rather than

a federal

authority,

and

was

not

required

by the

U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency.

While the federal regulations

at

40

CFR

Part

63,

Subpart

T,

do

prescribe

national

emission

standards for halogenated solvent cleaning,

those regulations apply

to

batch and in-line cleaning,

which are not the forms of cleaning

at

issue

in

this

petition,

and

to

the

use

of

specific

halogenated

solvents,

which

are

not

solvents

used

by

Petitioner

Argonne.

Accordingly,

granting

this

petition

would

not

be

inconsistent

with

any federal law addressing cold cleaning.

i.

Statement

That

The

Board

May

Grant

The

Proposed

Adjusted

Standard

Consistent With

Federal Law.

For the

reasons

indicated

in

the

discussion

of Item

4. of Section

h.

of this

petition,

Petitioner Argonne submits that the

Board

may grant the

proposed

adjusted standard consistent with federal law.

j.

Statement Requesting Or Waiving A Hearing.

Petitioner Argonne

understands

that

a

hearing

on

the

petition

is

required

because

an

adjusted

standard

would

become

part

of

the

state

implementation

plan for ozone for the Chicago non-attainment area.

k.

Supporting Documents Or Legal Authorities.

Citations to appropriate sections

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Act

and the

regulations of the

Illinois Administrative Code

have

been

referenced

in

the

various

sections

of this

petition.

The

relevant

cited

portions

of

the

transcript

of

Docket

97-24

(Rulemaking),

the

Board’s

consideration

of the

proposal that became the

regulation

at issue

in this

petition,

are attached

as

Exhibit

1.

No other authorities,

which would require appending to this petition

by 35

III. Adm. Code

104.406(k), are cited for consideration.

Any

Additional

Information.

Petitioner Argonne

submits

no

additional information

beyond that

presented

or referenced

in the prior

sections of this petition.

Attachments:

Exhibit

1: Excerpts from Transcript of Docket 97-24 (Rulemaking)

Exhibit 2:

Summary of Current Research-Related Cold Cleaning Activities

Exhibit 3: Average Annual Usage of Certain Organic Solvents,

1999-2001

11

---

For U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY:

__________

/7,

~

“Gloria Walach

Da e

Counsel

U.S.

Department of Energy

9800 5. Cass Avenue

Argonne, Illinois 60439

(630) 252-2036

For THE

UNIVERSITY OF

CHICAGO:

William D.

Luck

0

Date

Assistant General Counsel

Argonne National

Laboratory

Operated

by The University of Chicago

For the

U.S.

Department of Energy

9700 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne,

Illinois 60439

(630) 252-7300

---

Exhibit

1

1

1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2

VOLUME

I

3

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

9

ROP

PLAN

CONTROL

MEASURES

4

FOR

VOM

EMISSIONS

TIGHTENING

COLD CLEANING REQUIREMENTS:

)

R97-24

5

AMENDMENTS

TO 35

ILL.

ADMIN.

)

(RULEMAKING)

CODE PARTS 211, 218 AND 219,

6

SUBPART E

7

8

9

The following is

the transcript of a rulemaking

10

hearing held in the above-entitled matter,

taken

11

stenographically by GEANNA M.

IAQUINTA,

CSR,

a

12

notary public within and for the County of Cook and

13

State of Illinois,

before K.C.

Poulos,

Hearing

14

Officer,

at

100 West Randolph Street,

Room 9—040,

15

Chicago,

Illinois,

on the

4th day of March,

1997,

16

A.D.,

commencing at

the hour of 10:00 o’clock a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

2

1

APPEARAN~CES:

2

HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:

3

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

100 West Randolph Street

4

Suite

1.1—500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

5

(312)

814—4925

BY: MS.

K.C. POULOS

6

HEARING OFFICER.

7

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

8

Mr.

J. Theodore Meyer

Mir.

Hiten Soni

9

10

11

.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEMBERS

12

PRESENT:

13

Ms. Christina L. Archer

Mr. Richard A. Forbes

14

Mr. Michael

D. Rogers

Ms. Karen L. Barancik

15

OTHER AUDIENCE MEMBERS WERE PRESENT AT THE HEARING,

16

BUT NOT LISTED ON THIS APPEARANCE PAGE.

17

18

19

20

2.

22

23

24

.

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

3

1

INDEX

2

.

PAGES

3

4

GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER

4-7

5

6

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA ARCHER

7-12

7

8

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD FORBES

12-15

9

10

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL ROGERS

15-24

11

12

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

24—45

13

14

CLOSING COMMENTS BY HEARING OFFICER

45-47

15

16

17

EXHIBITS

18

19

Marked for

20

Identification

21

22

Hearing Exhibit No.

1

4

23

24

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

4

1

(Hearing. Exhibit No.

1 marked

2

prior to the commencement of

3

the proceedings.)

4

MS.

POULOS:

My name is ICC. Poulos, and I’m

5

the hearing officer in this matter.

It’s entitled,

6

In The Matter of Nine Percent ROP Plan Control

7

Measures for VOM Emissions Tightening Cold Cleaning.

8

Requirements Amendments to 35 Illinois

9

Administrative Code Parts 211,

218, and 219 Subpart

10

E.

This is Docket Number R97—24.

11

Present today on behalf of the Illinois

12

Pollution Control Board and seated to my right is

13

Board Member

J. Theodore Meyer.

Also present from

14

the board is a technical staff is Hiten Soni,

and

15

this hearing will be governed by the board’s

16

Procedural Rules

for Regulatory Proceedings.

17

All information which is relevant and not

18

repetitious

or privileged will be admitted.

All

19

witnesses will be sworn and subject to

0

20

cross—questioning.

21

This proceeding

is a fast—track rulemaking,

22

which was filed on December 13th,

1996,

by the

23

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to

24

Section 28.5 of the Act.

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419—9292.

---

5

1

Pursuant to the provisions of that section,

2

the board is required to proceed with this

3

rulemaking under set

time frames.

Section

28.5 also

4

establishes specific purposes

for each hearing and

5

other procedure requirements.

6

Pursuant to Section 28.5,

this. first

7

hearing is reserved for the agency’s presentation of

8

its proposal and questions directed to the agency’s

9

witnesses.

10

The agency witnesses have prefiled

11

testimony,

which will be entered into the record as

12

if read.

13

Today

the agency witnesses will provide

14

summaries of their prefiled testimony.

.

Questioning

15

of the witnesses will then take place.

Anyone may

16

ask a question of any witness.

During the

17

questioning period,

I would like persons with

18

questions to raise theirs hands and wait

for me to

19

acknowledge them.

20

What we’re going to do today is start

out

21

with the prefiled questions,

and then we’ll go into

22

other questions from members of the audience,

if

23

they .have any.

24

Please note that any questions asked by

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

6

1

board members and staff are not intended to express

2

any preconceived notions or bias, but only to build

3

a complete record for review by the other board

4

members who are not present today.

5

Pursuant to my February 21st,

1997,

hearing

6

officer order,

a second and third hearing have been

7

scheduled in this matter.

The second and third

8

hearings may be canceled without further notice if

9

the effected entities

are

in agreement on the rule

10

and the U.S. EPA has not informed the board of any

11

unresolved objection to the rule.

12

However,

within seven days after the first

13

hearing,

any person may request that the second

14

hearing be held.

Such a request must be made either

15

on the record at this hearing or in writing filed

16

with the board and served upon those on the service

17

list.

18

The second hearing,

if necessary,

shall be

19

devoted to presentation testimony,, documents,

and

20

comments by effected entities and all other

21

interested parties.

22

The third hearing,

if necessary,

shall be

23

devoted to interagency response

to material

24

presented at the second hearing and to any response

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

7

1

by other parties.

2

Mr.

Meyer,

do you have any comments at this

3

time?

4

MR. MEYER:

‘

No’,

thanks.

5

MS.

POULOS:

Okay.

We will then turn to the

6

agency’s presentation of its proposal.

7

Ms. Archer,

do you have any opening

8

statement?

9

MS. ARCHER:

Yes,

I

do.

10

MS.

POULOS:

Proceed, please.

11

MS.

ARCHER:

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name

12

is Christina Archer,

and

I represent the Illinois

13

Environmental Protection Agency ,in this rulemaking

14

proposal,

R97—24 regarding cold cleaning degreasing

15

operations.

16

The rulemaking is being submitted to the

17

Illinois Pollution Control Board to satisfy

10

Illinois’

commitment under the Clean Air Act to

19

reduce emissions of volatile organic material by

20

three percent each year from 1990 baseline levels

21

until attainment is reached.

22

This rulemaking will cover both the Chicago

23

severe ozone nonattainment area and the Metro—East

24

St.

Louis moderate ozone nonattainment

area.

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

8

1

While the Metro—East area

is not

2

immediately ‘subject to the rate of progress

3

requirements under the Clean Air Act,

additional

4

control measures will assist

the area in reaching

5

attainment,

and further Metro—East is at risk of

6

being bumped up to the next higher classification or

7

serious,

which would implicate the rate of progress

8

requirements.

9

Since the rate of progress provisions

are

10

mandated by the Clean Air Act and sanctions can

11

apply for a state’s failure to adopt such rules,

12

this propoàal is being submitted to the Illinois

13

Pollution Control Board pursuant

to the fast-track

14

provision set forth in Section 28.5 of the

15

Environmental Protection Act.

16

This proposal will amend

35 Illinois

17

Administrative Codes Sections 218 and 219

182 to add

18

more stringent requirements

for solvents sold or

19

used in cold cleaning degreasers along with

20

associated recordkeeping provisions.

21

The proposal will also add

a definition at

22

35 Illinois Administrative Code 211.1085 for

23

electi~oniccomponents.

The cleaning of electronic

24

components will be exempt

from the proposal.

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

9

1’

The proposal will be implemented

in two

2

phases.

Initially,

the vapor pressure of solvents

3

sold for or used in cold cleaning degreasing will be

4

limited to two millimeters

of mercury measured

at

20

5

degrees Celsius in the year 1999 and then it will be

6

limited

to

one

millimeter

of

mercury

measured

at

20

7

degrees Celsius in the year 2001.

8

The Illinois EPA believes that this is

a

9

reasonable approach.

Solvents

at a 2.0 millimeters

10

per mercury vapor pressure are readily available and

11

the phase-in approach will allow additional time for

12

manufacturers and suppliers to switch

to

the lower

13

vapor pressure solvents.

14

The proposal

is patterned after a similar

15

rule in the state of Maryland,

which also adopted a

16

‘phase-in approach, and sources in Maryland are

17

currently meeting a

1.0 vapor pressure limit.

18

The Illinois EPA further believes that the

19

recordkeeping provision of the rule are reasonable.

20

The type of information we

are seeking is

a type

of

21

information currently being retained.

Usually,

this

22

would be on material safety data sheets or other

23

type

of technical information.

24

The exclusion

for electronic components is

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

10

1

being included in, the proposal due to concerns

2

raised by.several parties that solvents with low

3

vapor pressure would not adequately clean such

4

components.

5

Maryland also recognized that the cleaning

6

of electronic components was a general concern and

7

limited its

rule to the cleaning of metal parts

8

only.

9

This proposal is intended to cover the

10

manufacturers,

suppliers,

and recyclers of solvent

11

used in cold cleaning degreasing as well

as the

12

users of such solvent such auto repair and

13

refinishing shops and metal finishing shops.

14

Since the number of sources potentially

15

subject to the proposal is quite large,

the Illinois

16

EPA

is proposing a five—gallon de minimus cut

off.

17

This means that suppliers only need to keep records

18

of sales of solvent in quantities over

five gallons.

19

The Illinois EPA believes this would exempt

20

most over—the—counter retail sales

of, such

21

solvents.

The Illinois EPA has .conducted extensive

22

outreach in this proposal and understands that

23

solvents meeting the proscribed vapor pressure

24

limits

are readily available and are also cost

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

11

1

effective.

2

The cost of controlling a ton of VOM range

3

from $238 to $779.

In addition,

the Illinois EPA

4

has sent

a copy of this proposal to.U.S. EPA Region

5

Five for parallel processing.

The Illinois EPA

6

believes that Region Five

is in substantial

7

agreement with the proposal.

8

With me today to my immediate left is Dick

9

‘

Forbes.

He’s the manager of the Ozone Regulatory

10

Unit,

and Mr.

Mi.ke Rogers,

next to him, who is an

11

Environmental Protection Specialist.

Both are in

12

the Illinois EPA’s Air Quality Planning Section.

0

13

Both Mr.

Forbes and

14

Mr. Rogers have prepared brief oral testimony in

15

this matter.

Mr.

Forbes will be giving a brief

16

general overview of the Clean Air Act provisions

17

required in this proposal,

and Mr.

Rogers will be

18

addressing the specifics of the proposal.

19

At this time,

I would make a motion

to the

20

board to accept Illinois EPA’s prefiled testimony

21

into the record as

if

read,

and ask that both Mr.

22

Forbes and Mr.

Rogers be sworn in and give their

23

oral testimony.

24

The Illinois EPA would then be happy to

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

12

1

answer any questions.

Thank you.

2

MS.

POULOS:

Any

objections?

Okay.

We’ll enter

3

your testimony as Exhibit

1 of this proceeding.

4

Would you please swear the witnesses?

5

(Witnesses sworn.)

6

WHEREUPON:’

7

.

RICHARD

FORBES,

8

MICHAEL

ROGERS,

9

called as witnesses herein,

having been first duly

10

sworn,

deposeth and saith as

follows:

11

MR.

FORBES:

My name is Dick Forbes.

I am

12

employed by the

Illi-nois Environmental Protection

13

Agency as

the manager of the Ozone Regulatory Unit

14

in the Air Quality Planning Section,

Bureau of’Air.

15

I’ve been employed by the Illinois EPA in

16

this capacity .for eleven years.

Prior to that,

I

17

served as analysis unit manager and new source

18

review unit manager both in permit section

—-

both

19

in the permit section of the Illinois EPA’s Bureau

20

of Air.

21

Prior to that,

I served as an environmental

22

protection engineer in the permit section of

23

Illinois

EPA’s Bureau of Water.

In

all,

I have been

24

employed by the Illinois EPA for 24 year~.

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

13

1

My educational’ background includes

a

2

bachelor of science degree in general engineering

3

from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

4

and a master of science degree in environmental

5

engineering from Southern Illinois University at

6

Carbondale.

7

I hold a professional engineering license

8

and I’m registered as

a professional engineer in the

9

state of Illinois.

10

My prefiled testimony addresses the need

11

for improved ozone air quality in Illinois,

and the

12

Federal Clean Air Act requirements which served as

13

the driving force

for Illinois EPA developing and

14

proposing regulations for controlling emissions

of

15

volatile organic material or VOM from certain

16

categories of emission sources..

17

The proposal being presented today,

control

18

of VOM emissions

from cold cleaning degreasing

19

operations,

is one such category.

Illinois has made

20

steady progress in achieving

the various

21

requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Acts.

22

Substantial reductions have been achieved

23

to date with the

implementation of the various board

24

adopted

15 percent rate of progress control measures

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

14

1

and the various federal measures.

However,

ozone

2

modeling results show that substantial reductions in

3

VOM emissions will still be requi’red

to reach

4

attainment of the ozone air quality standard.

5

Based on the preliminary results of the

6

ozone

transport

assessment

group,

widespread

7

transport of ozone and ozone precursors

is

8

occurring,

and with a reasonable reduction in

9

background ozone levels across the OTAG domain,

a

10

more realistic reduction target

is predicted.

11

In the meantime, the Clean Air Act requires

12

and the U.S. EPA has called for a demonstration that

13

Illinois

is making reasonable further progress in

14

Chicago in reducing emissions of VOM to satisfy the

15

three percent per year rate of progress provisions

16

.

of the Clean Air’ Act.

17

This demonstration must be made within

18

18

months of the effective date of the federal

19

registered notice containing the SIB call in order

20

to avoid federal sanctions.

21

Illinois EPA has evaluated available

22

controls

and assessed the needed reductions and

23

concluded that this proposal and an emissions

24

trading program for VOM emission sources in the

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

15

1

Chicago ozone nonattainment

area is

a reasonable

2

approach to solving part of this requirement and

3

that the reductions

from implementing this rule in

4

the Metro-East nonattainment area will further

5

assist it in meeting the ozone national ambient air

6

quality standards.

7

Mike Rogers of the Illinois EPA Bureau of

8

Air will provide details of the specific

9

requirements of the proposed cold cleaning

10

degreasing rule in his testimony,

and that concludes

11

my overview.

.

12

MS.

POULOS:

Okay.

Thank you.

13

MR.

ROGERS:

Good morning.

My name is Mike

14

Rogers,

and

I am an Environmental Protection

15

Specialist

in the Air Quality Planning Section of

16

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

17

(“Illinois

EPA”)

Bureau of Air.

~Technical regarding

18

the proposed regulation R97—24 before you today,

I

19

was involved in the development

of

the regulation

20

and was responsible for preparing the technical

21

support document.

22

The Illinois EPA is proposing a

23

modification in Sections 218.182 and 219.182 to

24

limit the vapor pressures of solvents

sold or used

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

16

1

in cold cleaning.

These reductions and solvent

0

2

vapor pressure will substantially decrease volatile

3

organic material,

VOM,

emissions from cold cleaning

4

operations.

Emissions

of VOM from cold cleaning

5

solvent degreasing result from the evaporation of

6

VOM from solvents both during periods when parts are

7

being cleaned and when the degreasing unit sits

‘8

idle.

9

.

Solvent cleaning or degreasing as

it

is

10

commonly called is a process using aqueous liquids

11

or non—aqueous organic solvents to clean and remove

—~‘

12

soils from surfaces.

Solvent cleaning

is divided

13

into the following three major types:

Cold

14

cleaning,

open—top vapor degreasing,

and

15

conveyorized degreasing.

16

Cold cleaning

is defined in

35 Illinois

17

Administrative Code 211.1310 as

the process of

18

cleaning and removing soils from surfaces by

19

spraying,

brushing,

flushing,

or immersion while

20

maintaining the organic solvent below its boiling

21

point.

Wipe Cleaning

is

not included in this

22

definition.

23

Cold cleaning degreasing takes place

at

24

auto repair shops,

car dealerships, marine

shops

——

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

17

1

excuse me

--

machine shops,

and other metal

2

fabrication and manufacturing businesses.

Cold

3

cleaning equipment suppliers estimate that there are

4

between 50,000 and 60,000 cold cleaning units

in

5

operation in the Chicago area.

Using this estimate,

6

approximately 5,000 to 6,000 units could be use in

7

the Metro—East

area.

Solvent degreasing equipment

8

.

and degreasing materials

are typically supplied by

9

the same companies.

10

The Illinois EPA estimates that 1990 VOM

11

emissions from cold cleaning were approximately 32

12

tons per day in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area

13

and two and a half tons per day in

the Metro—East

14

area.

15

The Illinois EPA is proposing a

16

modification to the current cold cleaning solvent

17

degreasing regulations

35 Illinois Administrative

18

Code,

Part

218 and 219,

Subpart

E,

Solvent Cleaning,

19

to limit the vapor pressure of solvents sold or used

20

in cold cleaning to 2.0 millimeters of mercury

21

measured at 20 degrees centigrade,

68 degrees

22

Fahrenheit beginning on March

15th,

1999,

and to

1.0

23

millimeters of mercury measured

—-

beginning March

24

15th,

2001.

L.A.

REPO1~.TING

(312)

419-9292

---

18

1

The proposed vapor pressure limits are

2

identical to those adopted in the

state of Maryland

3

as

a part of its

15 percent rate of progress plan.

4

Discussions with the major suppliers have indicated

5

that solvents meeting this vapor pressure limit are

6

available and in use in Illinois.

7

The phased—in compliance dates will allow

8

solvent users and suppliers time to acquire and

9

adjust to the use of the lower vapor pressure

10

solvents.

11

Also proposed are recordkeeping provisions,

12

which require that solvent suppliers and users

of

13

solvents

in cold cleaning degreasers maintain

14

documents which indicate the solyent’s vapor

15

pressure at the prescribed temperature.

16

The marketers of cold cleaning solvents

17

must keep records indicating the name and address

of

18

the solvent purchaser,

the date of purchase,

the

19

type of solvent purchased,

the solvent unit

20

quantity,

the total volume purchased,

and the vapor

21

pressure of the solvent purchased measured in

22

millimeters

of mercury at

20 degrees centigrade,

.68

23

degrees Fahrenheit.

24

Solvent users must maintain records for

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

19

1

each solvent purchased indicating the name and

2

address of the solvent supplier,

the date of the

3

purchase,

the type of solvent purchased, and

4

the vapor pressure of the solvent measured

in

5

millimeters of mercury at

20 degrees centigrade,

68

6

degrees Fahrenheit.

7

These

records

must

be

kept

for

three

8

years.

It

is

the Illinois EPA’s understanding that

9

these types of the records

are generally already

10

being maintained as solvent users are given material

11

safety data sheets or other product technical

12

information by the marketer which includes much of

13

the information requested.

14

The supplier sales and recordkeeping

15

requirements only apply to the sale of solvents in

16

units greater than five gallons.

Although cleaning

17

solvents are sold at various stores specializing in

18

auto products,

including department stores with auto

19

~upp1y

sections,

such consumer products are not

~intended

to be included in

the scope of this

21

regulation.

22

The Illinois EPA believes

that the

23

five—gallon cut off will exclude the over the

24

counter auto supply store solvent sales and limit

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

20

1

the applicability to the bulk suppliers

for which

2

the regulation is intended.

3

The state of Maryland estimated that

4

reducing the vapor pressure of solvents used in cold

5

cleaning to one millimeter of mercury would result

6

in a

67 percent reduction in such VOM emissions.

7

Emission reductions ocCur since, lower vapor pressure

‘8

solvents evaporate more slowly than solvents with a

9

higher vapor pressure.

10

Applying the same percentage reduction

11

estimates developed in Maryland,

the Illinois EPA

12

estimates that VOM emissions will be reduced by 23

13.

tons per day in the Chicago nonattainment area and

14

1.6

tons

per

day

in the Metro-East nonattainment

15

area

in

the

year

2001.

16

There

are

two

primary

cost

elements

17

associated

with

lowering

the

solvent,

vapor

pressure;

18

the

cost

of

the

solvent

itself

and

costs

associated

19

with changes in the solvent distillation process for

20

recycling.

The cost estimates contained in the

21

technical support document are based on information

22

collected from the state

of Maryland and from

23

solvent suppliers during the rule development

24

outreach process.

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

21

1

The total annual cost estimated for the

1.0

2

millimeter

mercury

solvent

in

both

nonattainment

3

.

areas range between $1.8 million and

$6 million.

4

Dividing the total estimated cost by the annual VOM

5

emission reduction of 7,675

tons

yI’elds

a

cost

6

effectiveness

range

of

between

$238

and

$779

per

7

ton.

8

‘

The Illinois EPA believes

these costs to be

9

conservative because they do not take into

10

consideration the fact that solvent meeting the

1.0

11

millimeter mercury limit

is already being used.

In

12

addition,

the figures do not include an anticipated

13

cost

reduction due to an expected extended life of

14

the solvent.

15

Since the vapor pressure of the solvent is

16

lower,

it evaporates more slowly,

thereby extending

.17

the average service interval and reducing disposal

18

costs.

19

In

fact,

the state of Maryland estimated

20

that the use of a 1.0 millimeter mercury solvent

21

would result in an overall savings.

22

As stated previously,

other areas have

23

tightened or proposed to tighten their cold cleaning

24

regulations

in order to comply with Clean Air Act

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

22

1

rate of progress requirements.

Most notable are the

2

state of Maryland and

the South Coast Air Quality

3

Management District,

which is responsible

for air

4

quality planning for Los Angeles,

California area.

5

As previously mentioned,

the state of

6

Maryland included the same cold cleaning vapor

7

pressure limits

in

its

15 percent rate of progress

8

plan.

This

1.0 millimeter mercury limit

is

9

currently in effect and such solvent

is being

10

‘provided and effectively used.

11

The South Coast Air Quality Management

12

District is

currently proposing a solvent cleaning

13

regulation which would require that beginning in

14

1999 the volatile organic compound,

VOC,

limit of

15

solvents used in general repair and maintenance

16

cleaning be reduced from 900 grams per liter or

17

seven and a half pounds per gallon to 50 grams per

18

liter or 0.42 pounds per gallon.

19

This proposal essentially requires the use

20

of aqueous cleaners for such cleaning which do work

21

well for certain applications,

but not

for all

22

cleaning operations.

23

As previously mentioned,

the Illinois EPA

24

sought and incorporated the input of numerous

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

23

1

parties involved in solvent cleaning.

‘The Illinois

2

EPA sent out copies of the rule proposal to over 20

3

persons representing individual businesses,

solvent

4

suppliers,

degreasing equipment manufacturers,

and

5

industrial trade associations.

6

Several issues were raised

during this

7

rule development process,

which resulted in rule

8

modifications

as

it is being proposed.

Examples

9

include the phased—in vapor pressure limits and the’

10

exemption for the cleaning of electronic

11

components.

Both of these situations were

12

encountered by the state of Maryland during its rule

13

development and were incorporated into its

14

regulation’.

15

In summary,

the Illinois EPA believes that

16

the proposed cold cleaning solvent vapor pressure

17

limits are both a practical and cost-effective means

18

of obtaining necessary VOM emission reductions in

19

the Chicago and Metro-East ozone nonattainment

-

20

areas.

Solvents meeting the proposed limits are

21

currently in use and the state of Maryland has

22

adopted

a similar regulation requiring the same

23

vapor pressure limits..

0

24

Use of the 2.0 and 1.0 millimeter mercury

L.A.

REPORTING

(312)

419-9292

---

24

1

vapor pressure solvent is expected to reduce 1990

2

cold cleaning emissions by 33 percent and

67 percent

3

respectively.

4

The 1999 and 2001 compliance dates also

5

allow solvent users and suppliers time to make the

6

transition to the

1.0 millimeter mercury vapor

7

pressure solvent.

The Illinois EPA estimates that

8

the worst case cost effectiveness

of the

1.0

9

millimeter mercury vapor pressure requirement limit

10

is between $238 and $779 per

ton.

11

Therefore,

the Illinois EPA believes that

12

the proposed solvent vapor pressure limits are a

13

reasonable means for reducing VOM emissions in the

14

Chicago and Metro—East nonattainment areas.

15

This concludes my prepared testimony.,

16

MS.

POULOS:

Ms. Archer,

is there anything

17

else?

18

,

MS. ARCHER:

No.

We’re ready to answer any

19

questions.

20

MS.

POULOS:

Okay.

Ms.

Faur, why don’t we start

21

with your prefiled questions

if that’s

all right?

22

MS.

FAUR:

That’s fine with me.

23

Good morning.

I’m Cindy Faur.

I’m here on

24

behalf

of

Cerro

Copper

Products

Company.

L.A. REPORTING

(312)

419—9292

---

Exhibit 2

Argonne National Laboratory-East

Summary of Current Research-Related Cold Cleaning Activities

On

a

building-by-building

basis,

the

following

listing

sets

forth

information

regarding

current

research-related use by

Argonne National

Laboratory-East research divisions

of organic solvents

(ethanol, hexane, isopropanol, or methanol) for cold cleaning activities

involving the preparation of

sample materials and

associated apparatus for testing

and analysis.

Such activities include washing

and rinsing

slides, sample preparation, specimen

cleaning, gel stain/de-staining, membrane rinsing,

and the cleaning of small parts

‘and equipment associated

with the preparation of sample materials

for testing and analysis.

Building 200

—

Materials Science

(Rooms

114,

174)

Solvents are used for drying glassware.

Building

202

—

Biosciences

(Rooms

111, 210, 218, 226, 254, 301,362,

366)

Alcohols

(ethanol,

isopropanol’,

methanol)

are

used in

gel

stair~Jde-stainingarid

washing/rinsing

slides.

Ethanol also

is used in sterilization.

Building 203

Environmental Research

(Room

134)

Solvents are used for sample preparation.

Building 212

—

Energy

Techno1ogy/1’s~LaterialsScience (Rooms

106A, 110,

124, 130,

133, 216, 219,

235,

~fl

Solvents are used for sample preparation.

Building 223

—

Materials Science

(Rooms

A126, B134,

C137, B218,

C226)

Alcohols and xylene are used for specimen cleaning.

Building 360

—

Intense Pulsed Neutron Source

(Room

248)

Solvents are used for sample preparation.

Building

362

—

Advanced

Photon

Source

Experimental Facilities/Energy Systems

(Rooms

002,

208,232)

These

divisions

use

solvents

for

sample

preparation,

glassware

cleaning

(immersion),

and

membrane rinsing (isopropanol).

Building 369

—

Energy Systems

Solvents are used in glassware cleaning (immersion).

Building 400

—

Advanced Photon Source Operations

(Rooms

MLC-1, 1-CR-A)

Solvents may be employed

in

sample

preparation and small parts cleaning.

Building

401

—

Advanced

Photon

Source

Experimental Facilities

(Rooms

L0104,

L1103,

L1104,

L2104, L3104)

Solvents may be employed in sample preparation and small parts cleaning.

Buildings 431-435

—

Advanced Photon Source Users (Rooms

030, A030, B030,

C030, D030, E030)

Solvents may be used on accelerator systems and for sample preparation.

---

---

Exhibit 3

Argonne National Laboratory-East

1999-2001

Ethanol, hexane, isopropanol, methanol, and toluene

are solvents

identified as

being used for cold

cleaning in research activities

at Argonne National

Laboratory-East.

Although Argonne

can track

total usage ofthese solvents,

it is

infeasible to track only the precise usage for cold cleaning.

It is

estimated that about one third ofthe total usage would be for cold cleaning.

The usage information

below is based on average overall annual usage ofeach solvent during the period

1999

—

2001.

Solvent

Total Usage(lb/year)

Estimated Usage for Cold Cleaning in

ResearchApplications

(lb/year)

Ethanol

3,297

1,099

Hexane

169

56

Isopropanol

‘

971

324

Methanol

729

243

Toluene

266

89

---