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 A P
P E A R A N C E S:
2 HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
3 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
100 West Randolph Street
4 Suite 11-500
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
Mr.
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
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1 I N D E X
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 E X H I B I T S
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 K.C.
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
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
18 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 proposal 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 electronic components. 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. Mike Rogers, next to him, who is an
11 Environmental Protection Specialist. Both are in
12 the Illinois EPA's Air Quality Planning Section.
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 R I C H A R D F O R B E S,
8 M I C H A E L R O G E R S,
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 Illinois 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 years.
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 required 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
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. REPORTING (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 solvent'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 supply sections, such consumer products are not
20 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 yields 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.
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
25
1 These first questions are going to be from
2 my prefiled questions dated February 28th. Number
3 one, in your testimony, Mr. Rogers, you indicated
4 that you're responsible for the development of
5 emission estimates for area sources. These are the
6 wrong questions. One second. I apologize. Strike
7 that.
8 Number one, the proposed rule concerns cold
9 cleaning operations. Certain
conveyorized
10 degreasing operations, however, also utilize cold
11 cleaners. Will the material requirements contained
12 in the proposal also apply to
conveyorized
13 degreasing units which utilize cold cleaning.
14 MR. ROGERS: The question correctly points out
15 that some
conveyorized degreasing operations utilize
16 the cold cleaning process.
17 The definition of
conveyorized contained in
18 Sections 211.1550 states
conveyorized degreasing
19 means the continuous process of cleaning and
20 removing soils from surfaces utilizing either cold
21 or vaporized solvents. The differentiation in the
22 regulation deals with the continuous nature of
23 conveyorized degreasing.
24 Based on this differentiation, regulations
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1 for
conveyorized degreasing operations were included
2 in a separate section, 218 and 219.184. The
3 proposed regulation only includes material
4 requirements in Subsections 218.182 and 219.182, so
5 the Illinois EPA did not intend the solvent vapor
6 pressure limits to apply to
conveyorized degreasing
7 operations.
8 MS. FAUR: Thank you. This is my second
9 question. This question concerns Sections
10 218.182(f) and 219.182(f).
11 These sections contain an exemption from
12 the material requirements for cold cleaning of
13 electronic components. Under Section 211.1885 of
14 the proposal, electric components is defined as,
15 quote, all portions of an electric assembly,
16 including, but not limited to circuit board
17 assemblies, printed wire assemblies, printed circuit
18 boards, soldered joints, ground wires, bus bars, and
19 associated electronic component manufacturing
20 equipments such as screens and filters, end quote.
21 Could electrical motors be included in the
22 definition of electric components for the purposes
23 of the exemption in Sections 218.182(f) and
24 219.182(f)?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1 MR. ROGERS: Yes. It is the Illinois EPA's
2 opinion that electrical motors could be considered
3 as within the definition of electric components.
4 MS. FAUR: Could electrical contacts be included
5 in the definition of electric components for
6 purposes of this exemption?
7 MR. ROGERS: Based on conversations with
Cerro
8 Copper about their operation revolving around
9 electronic components, we understand that this --
10 this operation is a spray and wipe-type operation
11 and wipe cleaning is specifically exempt from the
12 cold cleaning requirements. So that
13 would -- the cleaning of electrical contacts would
14 not be included in this regulation.
15 MS. FAUR: Finally, could electrical control
16 panels be included in the definition of electronic
17 components for the purposes of this exemption?
18 MR. ROGERS: Similarly, we understand that wipe
19 cleaning is performed on the electrical control
20 panels, and wipe cleaning is not included in the
21 scope of this regulation.
22 MS. FAUR: Thank you. And before going on to my
23 supplemental questions, which were filed on Monday,
24 I'd like to ask a few clarifying questions. Those
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1 supplemental may not be necessary.
2 MS. POULOS: That's fine.
3 MS. FAUR: First, is the agency aware of
Cerro
4 Copper's cold cleaning operations for ACR and other
5 copper tubing? Specifically, is the agency aware of
6 the
Detrex cold cleaning degreaser for which
Cerro
7 Copper has recently received a construction permit?
8 MR. ROGERS: Yes, we are.
9 MS. FAUR: Does the agency intend this
Detrex
10 degreaser or other substantially similar units to be
11 subject to this rule?
12 MR. ROGERS: Due to the nature of the
Detrex
13 unit, we do not -- we feel that an exemption for
14 that would be appropriate.
15 MS. FAUR: Is the agency currently working on
16 such an exemption?
17 MR. ROGERS: Yes. Based on comments received
18 from
Cerro Copper during the outreach portion of
19 this rule development, we are working with them to
20 craft the proper exemption.
21 MS. FAUR: Based on those responses, I don't
22 believe that my supplemental questions need to be
23 asked at this time. However,
Cerro may be
24 requesting a second hearing, and at that time, if
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1 the hearing is necessary, we would like to be able
2 to ask these questions.
3 MS. POULOS: Okay. That's fine.
4 If I could just ask the agency to prepare
5 an errata sheet documenting this exemption and the
6 proposed language for this exemption.
7 MS. ARCHER: That would be fine.
8 MS. POULOS: Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
9 MS. FAUR: That's the last of my questions.
10 Thank you.
11 MS. POULOS: Okay. Thank you.
12 We also have
prefiled questions from
13 Sunnyside Corporation.
14 Would you like to ask your questions?
15 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes.
16 MS. POULOS: Okay. If you could, state your
17 name and your organization and speak up because
18 you're kind of in the back of the room, that would
19 be great.
20 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That's fine.
21 MS. POULOS: Thanks.
22 MR. BUCHANAN: My name is Bill
Buchanan. I am
23 vice-president for
Sunnyside Corporation. We are a
24 packager and distributor of various chemicals, oils,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1 and solvents, particularly in the
Chicagoland area.
2 Included in uses of those solvents are
3 solvents for cold cleaning and degreasing, and the
4 questions I have here are directed to that portion
5 of our business.
6 My first question is what is the reason for
7 restricting the sale of solvents with vapor
8 pressures at two millimeters of mercury and 20
9 degrees centigrade or one millimeter of mercury by
10 March 15th, 2001?
11 MR. ROGERS: Regulations in several states,
12 including the state of Illinois, contain compliance
13 requirement for sale of products which are widely
14 used. Section 10(d) of the Illinois Environmental
15 Protection Act contains restrictions on the sale of
16 certain products.
17 Also, the Illinois Pollution Control Board
18 regulations regarding the sale of summertime
19 gasoline at 35 Illinois Administrative Code Section
20 219.585 state that, quote, no person shall sell,
21 offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply,
22 or transport for use in Illinois gasoline whose read
23 vapor pressure exceeds the applicable limitations,
24 close quotes.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1 Other examples include the states of
2 California, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island,
3 and Texas requirements for consumer products.
4 Such supply requirements increase the level
5 of use of compliant products and the result in air
6 quality benefit.
7 MR. BUCHANAN: Shouldn't the control be on
8 emissions instead of on sale? Aren't you penalizing
9 those people who use these solvents in cold cleaning
10 and degreasing now and control their emissions?
11 MR. ROGERS: The control requirement in the
12 proposed regulation is the vapor pressure limit of
13 the solvent. As the solvent vapor pressure
14 decreases, the emissions decrease.
15 Therefore, the proposed control focuses on
16 the source of the emissions. Although cold cleaning
17 degreasers are typically equipped with a cover,
18 emissions still occur. The lower vapor pressure
19 solvents will reduce these emissions.
20 The Illinois EPA believes that any further
21 capture and control of control emissions is unlikely
22 due to the expense associated with installing and
23 operating control equipment and since there is no
24 requirement that such emissions be controlled.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1 MR. BUCHANAN: Question number three, control of
2 the sale of the product and the associated
3 recordkeeping for cold cleaning puts an unnecessary
4 burden on sellers of these products. Aren't we
5 being used as a policing body for the Illinois EPA?
6 MR. ROGERS: The Illinois EPA is responsible for
7 the enforcement of the regulations adopted by the
8 Illinois Pollution Control Board. As mentioned
9 previously, including requirements targeting the
10 sale of products that are widely used is a common
11 regulatory approach to achieving greater compliance
12 with the regulations.
13 Regarding the
recordkeeping requirements
14 for suppliers, it is the Illinois EPA's
15 understanding through conversations held with
16 solvent suppliers during the rule development
17 process that many of the records required to be kept
18 are already being maintained. Customer names,
19 dates, and quantities of product sold seem to be
20 fairly standard records to maintain.
21 The Illinois EPA does not believe that
22 maintaining the additional solvent characteristic
23 data would be unreasonably burdensome.
24 MR. BUCHANAN: Question number four, why
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1 restrict the sale to five-gallon units? If a
2 customer wants a 55-gallon drum of a product, why
3 wouldn't he buy five-gallon -- 11 five-gallon
4 pails.
5 MR. ROGERS: The purpose of limiting the
6 recordkeeping requirements to suppliers who sell
7 solvent in units greater than five gallons is to
8 relieve retail facilities from keeping records on
9 sales of solvents in small unit quantities to
10 individuals.
11 The Illinois EPA believes that the
12 five-gallon unit is a reasonable indicator of break
13 between commercial and individual users, and it is
14 the commercial cleaning operations from which we are
15 seeking the emission reductions.
16 If a customer wanted to purchase a 11
17 five-gallon pails rather than a 55-gallon drum, that
18 person would still be subject to the requirements of
19 the proposed regulation.
20 The Illinois EPA does not believe that this
21 situation will arise often due to the additional
22 expense and inconvenience associated with buying the
23 smaller quantities.
24 MR. BUCHANAN: Question number five, exempt
VOCs
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1 such as Acetone and
Methylene Chloride appear to be
2 included in the regulation.
3 Why are there no exemptions for these
4 products?
5 MR. ROGERS: Sections 218.181 and 219.181, the
6 Subpart E solvent cleaning requirements, quote,
7 apply to all cold cleaning open-top vapor degreasing
8 and
conveyorized degreasing operations, which use
9 volatile organic material, close quotes.
10 Based on the definition of VOM contained in
11 Section 211.7150, Acetone and
Methylene Chloride are
12 exempt. Therefore, the proposed regulation would
13 not affect cold cleaning operations using Acetone or
14 Methylene Chloride.
15 MR. BUCHANAN: Thank you. Question six, Mineral
16 Spirits has a vapor pressure of two millimeters of
17 mercury at 20 degrees centigrade. This product is
18 low cost, it's easily recycled, and has a low impact
19 on ozone formation.
20 Why force numerous businesses, large and
21 small, into high cost options for, what we consider,
22 minimal benefit?
23 MR. ROGERS: A solvent with a vapor pressure of
24 2.0 would comply with the first phase of the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1 regulation. The phase-in approach of the proposed
2 regulation was included to allow these performing --
3 those performing cold cleaning until March 2001 to
4 fine a one-millimeter mercury solvent alternative.
5 Based on information gathered during the
6 development of the rule, solvents meeting the
7 proposed 1.0 millimeter mercury can also be
8 recycled. According to the state of Maryland,
9 reducing the solvent vapor pressure to 1.0
10 millimeters of mercury would reduce cold cleaning
11 emissions by 67 percent.
12 This will result in a VOM emissions
13 reduction of 23 tons per day in the Chicago
14 nonattainment area and 1.6 tons per day in the
15 Metro-East
nonattainment area in the year 2001.
16 The Illinois EPA does not consider these
17 emission reduction totals to be minimal. The cost
18 figures contained in the technical support document
19 indicate a cost effectiveness of the proposed 1.0
20 millimeter mercury standard at between $238 and $779
21 per ton of VOM.
22 Based on this information and compared to
23 other board-adopted reasonably available control
24 technology regulations, the Illinois EPA believes
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1 that the costs associated with the use of lower
2 vapor pressure solvents are reasonable.
3 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you.
4 Question number seven, we still feel that
5 we are being forced into a policeman's role if we
6 had to control the sale of products to cold cleaning
7 and cold degreasing operations who are prohibited
8 from selling those products.
9 How do we determine a customer's use of the
10 solvent? We sell numerous products. For example,
11 we sell several lacquer thinners and other paint
12 solvents. They can be and often are used for cold
13 degreasing.
14 Do we need written statements from all of
15 our customers as to the use of the products they
16 purchase? Will it do to verbally question these
17 customers as to the use? What do you expect us to
18 do in
recordkeeping when we don't know to what use
19 these customers put these solvents.
20 MR. ROGERS: The proposed regulation is not
21 intended to use the solvent suppliers as an
22 enforcement mechanism. The solvent suppliers are
23 subject to the proposed requirements and should do
24 whatever they believe is necessary in order to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1 demonstrate their own compliance.
2 From an enforcement prospective, if an
3 agency inspector found that a shop was performing
4 cold cleaning using a solvent exceeding the proposed
5 limits under the proposed section, Subsection 218,
6 219.182(c)(1), both the solvent user and the solvent
7 supplier could be considered as violating the
8 regulation.
9 If the solvent supplier -- if solvent
10 suppliers feel that the additional information is
11 necessary from the solvent purchaser, such as is
12 this solvent going to be used for cold cleaning,
13 then they should request such information.
14 A reasonable way to comply would be for a
15 supplier who sells a solvent that does not meet the
16 vapor pressure limit to provide information to the
17 purchaser indicating that such solvents should not
18 be used for cold cleaning.
19 In addition, some appropriate documentation
20 of this notification should be kept.
21 MR. BUCHANAN: That statement -- it seems to me
22 that that is putting us in a policing role.
23 MR. ROGERS: We believe that you are subject to
24 the regulation, and whatever you would need to do to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1 document your compliance would cover your own
2 interests. If you have documentation that you could
3 show to an agency inspector that you were led to --
4 that you informed your customer that such solvents
5 would not meet the unit -- meet the requirements for
6 cold cleaning, you could be considered as properly
7 doing your duty.
8 MR. BUCHANAN: It becomes very difficult when we
9 sell a product that isn't even related to cold
10 cleaning, but people buy that product for cold
11 cleaning.
12 We sell to thousands of customers in the
13 Chicago area, and we would be forced to question
14 these people. We might be force to send our
15 salespeople to their place of business to determine
16 what it is they're doing.
17 You're saying that we could be subject to
18 violation of the regulations if we sell these
19 solvents to people that use them in cold degreasing
20 even if we're unaware that they're using them in
21 cold degreasing, and the products aren't even
22 intended for cold degreasing.
23 That appears to me to require us to do the
24 work of the Environmental Protection Agency in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1 controlling the use of these products.
2 MR. ROGERS: I believe if a product is logically
3 not used, in your belief, as a cold cleaning product
4 and some customer of yours chooses to use that, you
5 would be safe in assuming that you would not have to
6 inform him that every product that you sell should
7 not be used for cold cleaning. I think if they were
8 using some product not intended for such a process,
9 you would logically not be liable for that.
10 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I understand your
11 statement, but my concern is that the regulation
12 doesn't say anything like that, and would I like to
13 see the regulations modified to not restrict the
14 sale of the product, first of all, but that not
15 being the case, I would like to see the regulations
16 modified to take into consideration what you've just
17 explained.
18 MS. ARCHER: Mr.
Buchanan, we'd be happy to
19 address that in our comments.
20 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you. That concludes
21 my questions at this time.
22 MS. POULOS: Okay.
23 MR. BUCHANAN: I would also like to say that I
24 did not get an opportunity to read the EPA's
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1 testimony prior to this hearing. If there is
2 another hearing, I would like to be able to
3 address --
4 MS. POULOS: That's fine.
5 MR. BUCHANAN: -- the issues more directly at
6 that time.
7 MS. POULOS: That's fine.
8 Okay. Are there any other questions from
9 members of the audience?
10 Okay. Would you state your name and your
11 organization?
12 MR. HOMER: Sure.
13 MS. POULOS: Thank you.
14 MR. HOMER: I'm Mark Homer from the Chemical
15 Industry Council of Illinois.
16 I have a question for either Mr.
Forbes or
17 Mr. Rogers. Is this -- is it the agency's intent
18 that this proposed rule in any way removes any
19 exemptions currently on the books for cold cleaning
20 degreasing operations?
21 MR. ROGERS: The only exemption I'm aware of is
22 that currently cold cleaning degreasing units are
23 not required to be permitted, and this rule would
24 not effect that exemption in any way.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1 MR. HOMER: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.
2 MS. POULOS: Okay. Do you have a question?
3 MR. CALLAHAN: I do.
4 MS. POULOS: All right.
5 MR. CALLAHAN: A brief question.
6 Hi. My name is Mike
Callahan, and I'm a
7 project engineer with Safety-
Kleen Corporation.
8 We're a nationwide provider of parts -- parts,
9 cleaning equipment, and solutions. We offer a
10 variety of parts cleaning solutions, including
11 several hydrocarbon and solvent cleaners as well as
12 several aqueous solutions.
13 We also offer a large variety of parts
14 cleaning equipment tailored to the many needs of our
15 customers.
16 We've reviewed the proposed regulations
17 addressing the restrictions on solvents that can be
18 used in parts cleaning activities. We find these
19 regulations to be very reasonable and appreciate the
20 effort and considered thought that went into
21 developing them.
22 We also expect that our services and
23 products will allow our customers to be in total
24 compliance long before the March 15th, 2001,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1 deadline.
2 My question is related specifically to the
3 vapor pressure. You mentioned, you know, the one
4 and the two millimeters. My question is, is there a
5 specific method that you wish to specify as to the
6 measuring of vapor pressure?
7 I know various agencies, you had indicated
8 South Coast, they allow determination by
9 calculation. Another one is
is the isoteniscope
10 method. Is -- I guess have you considered
11 specifying a particular method and possibly
12 referencing a nationally recognized standard to do
13 so.
14 MR. ROGERS: According to -- Section 218.111
15 includes the vapor pressure testing methods for
16 volatile organic material, and I believe that is
17 referenced within the rule as to the method to
18 properly test for the VOM content. It's a standard
19 U.S. EPA --
20 MR. CALLAHAN: Oh, okay.
21 MR. ROGERS: -- test method.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: All right.
23 Thank you.
24 MR. ROGERS: We'll clarify that in written
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1 comment.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: Good. Because it is mentioned --
3 you know, it is referred to
4 as -- so great. Thank you.
5 MS. POULOS: Are there any other questions?
6 Do you have any questions, Mr. Meyer?
7 Mr. Meyer, do you have any questions?
8 MR. MEYER: No.
9 MS. POULOS: Okay. I have just one clarifying
10 question. When Ms.
Faur was asking her questions --
11 let me just pull them out for a second. In
12 218.182(f) and 219.182(f), I just want to make sure
13 that we're talking about electronic components; is
14 that correct?
15 MS. ARCHER: Correct.
16 MS. POULOS: Okay. Good. All right. We'd
17 mentioned electrical at one point. So I thought,
18 well, let's just make sure that on the record it
19 says electronic.
20 I also have a question. Is there any
21 mention in the proposed rules about manufacturers of
22 these solvents placing a warning on their product
23 that these should not be used as degreasers in cold
24 cleaning processes?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1 MR. ROGERS: There is no requirement for any
2 labeling requirements. Such a warning would maybe
3 assist in this situation, but there is no
4 requirement for labeling.
5 MS. POULOS: I think it might be helpful in
6 terms of the
Sunnyside Corporation's concerns about,
7 you know, where their responsibility ends. If
8 there's something on the product label that says it
9 right there and points to the regulation, we could
10 have comments on that --
11 MS. ARCHER: Definitely, yes.
12 MS. POULOS: -- to address.
13 Yes?
14 MR. HOMER: I have a follow-up to that --
15 MS. POULOS: Yes. That's fine.
16 MR. HOMER: -- comment.
17 I'm Mark Homer with the Chemical Industry
18 Council. Isn't it true that certain operations
19 obtain their solvent directly via trucks so some
20 type of packaging requirement would not be available
21 to that type of situation.
22 MR. ROGERS: Do you mean in like a large
23 quantity it is pumped in?
24 MR. HOMER: Exactly.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1 MR. ROGERS: That's our understanding.
2 MR. HOMER: So it doesn't come in a package, so
3 obviously you wouldn't be able to put some type of
4 label on the product.
5 MR. ROGERS: That's our understanding as well.
6 Perhaps some statement of what you're thinking, a
7 line on a receipt or bill of labeling or
8 something --
9 MR. HOMER: Sure.
10 MR. ROGERS: -- an invoice would serve the same
11 purpose.
12 MS. POULOS: Okay. Mr.
Buchanan?
13 MR. BUCHANAN: It's not unusual when delivering
14 transport loads of product to include labeling
15 information with the delivery paperwork, even though
16 it is a bulk shipment.
17 MS. POULOS: Okay. If we could just get
18 comments on that then --
19 MS. ARCHER: Yes.
20 MS. POULOS: -- that would be much appreciated.
21 Okay. If there are not any other
22 questions, we have reached the end of this
23 proceeding. I note that there has been a request --
24 let me clarify that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1 Has there been a request for a second
2 hearing at this point?
3 MS. FAUR: We are not requesting a second
4 hearing at this point.
5 MS. POULOS: Okay.
6 MS. FAUR: We are continuing to discuss with the
7 agency the applicability of this rule and certain
8 operations of
Cerro's facility. If a second hearing
9 is necessary, we will request it within seven
10 days --
11 MS. POULOS: Okay.
12 MS. FAUR: -- pursuant to the board rules.
13 MS. POULOS: Terrific. And just so you know
14 that it is March 11th of '97.
15 Just for your clarification, the request
16 must be made in writing. It must be filed with the
17 board and served upon those on the service list.
18 What else do we need to know? If the board
19 receives a written agreement to the proposal from
20 the agency and the affected parties that they wish
21 to cancel the second hearing, that hearing will be
22 canceled.
23 The record in this matter will close 14
24 days after receipt of the transcript from the final
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1 hearing.
2 Are there any other matters which need to
3 be addressed at this time?
4 Okay. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you
5 very much.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled
7 proceedings were adjourned
8 pursuant to agreement, to be
9 continued sine die.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF C O
O K )
3
4 I, GEANNA M. PIGNONE-IAQUINTA, CSR, notary
5 publec within and for the County of Cook and State
6 of Illinois, do hereby certify that the testimony
7 then given by all participants of the rulemaking
8 hearing was by me reduced to writing by means of
9 machine shorthand and afterwards transcribed upon a
10 computer, and the foregoing is a true and correct
11 transcript.
12 I further certify that I am not counsel for
13 nor in any way related to any of the parties to this
14 procedure, nor am I in any way interested in the
15 outcome thereof.
16 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my
17 hand and affixed my
notarial seal this 14th day of
18 March,
A.D., 1997.
19
__________________________
20
Geanna M. Pignone-Iaquinta
Notary Public, Cook County, IL
21 Illinois License No. 084-004096
22 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me
this_____day
23 of__________, A.D., 1996.
___________________________
24 Notary Public
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292