ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 30,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
R91—24
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE
)
(Identical
in Substance Rules)
DEFINITION OF VON
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
3.
Anderson) :~
This proceeding updates various provisions of Parts 203,
211,
215,
218, and 219 to reflect the now codified successor of
USEPA’s most recent version of “Recommended Policy on the Control
of Volatile Organic Compounds.”
In effect, this docket completes
the amendments adopted in R9l-10, effective October 11,
1991.
In
that proceeding,
the Board amended the Part 211 and 215 rules by
our September 12,
1991 opinion and order in response to USEPA
additions to the list of chemicals exempted from the definition
of volatile organic materials
(VOMs).2
At 56 Fed. Reg.
11418,
March 18,
1991, USEPA added five compounds and four classes of
compounds to the list of negligibly photochemically-reactive
compounds exempt from regulation under state implementation plans
(SIPs).
Those compounds constituted additions to those compounds
exempted in R89-8, effective January 1,
1990.
USEPA
simultaneously proposed codification of the list at 56 Fed. Reg.
11387, on March
18,
1991.
USEPA has now codified these
exemptions effective March 4,
1992.
(57 Fed. Reg. 3941
(Feb.
3,
1992).)
Unaffected by the R9l-10 rulemaking,
as discussed in the
Board’s opinion and order in that matter, were the definition of
“volatile organic compound” at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 203.145 and the
definitions of “volatile organic material” at later—adopted
Sections 218.104 and 219.104.
Part 203 sets forth the rules
applicable to construction and modification of major stationary
sources.
Part 218 governs emissions of volatile organic material
from stationary sources located in the Chicago metropolitan area
(Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties)
.~
Part 219
The Board appreciates the contribution of Michael 3.
McCambridge, Board attorney,
in this matter.
2
USEPA consistently designates these “volatile organic
compounds” or “VOCs.”
Both designations refer to the same
matter, and all references in this opinion and order to “VON”
refer to what USEPA calls “VOC.”
~
Docket R91—28 concerns a proposed expansion of the
Chicago metropolitan area for the purposes of VON control.
If
adopted, this would expand the Chicago metropolitan area to
0135-0231
2
governs the emissions of volatile organic material from
stationary sources located in the metropolitan East St. Louis
area (Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair counties).
The Board
reserved this docket during the pendency of R91-10 in order to
complete the amendments to Parts 203,
218, and 219, which were
not affected by that matter.
This proceeding extends the
exemption to include all federally—exempted compounds for all
organic emissions from stationary sources in Illinois.
The Board adopts this opinion and order pursuant to the
identical—in—substance mandate under Section 9.1(e)
of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½,
par.
1009.1(e)).
Section 9.1(e) provides for quick adoption of
regulations that are “identical in substance” to certain pub—
lished federal policy statements.
It further provides that Title
VII of the Act and Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
shall not apply.
Because this rulemaking is not subject to
Section
5 of the APA,
it is not subject to First Notice or to
Second Notice review by the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules
(JCAR).
The Board adopted a proposal
for public comment in this
matter on February 27,
1992.
Notices of Proposed Amendments
appeared on April 24,
1992,
at
16
Ill. Reg.
6631 (Part 203),
16
Ill.
Reg.
6606 (Part 211),
16 Ill.
Reg.
6635 (Part 215),
16
Ill.
Reg.
6643
(Part 218),
and 16
Ill.
Reg. 6676
(219).
A public
hearing occurred on Nay 12,
1992, as required pursuant to 42
U.S.C.
§ 4210 and 40 CFR 51.102.
Agency Motion for Expedited Consideration
The Agency filed a motion for expedited consideration of
this matter on July 23,
1992.
The Board hereby grants that
motion.4
include Goose Lake and Aux Sable townships in Grundy County and
Oswego Township in Kendall County.
~
The Board wishes to make special note of the following.
We had already been proceeding at a fast pace in this rulemaking;
the earliest the Board could have acted on this matter following
the close of the public comment period was at the Board meeting
of July 9,
1992
(after having put this matter on the discussions
agenda for the June 23,
1992 meeting).
However, we had taken a
“pause” because of comments made at the May 12,
1992 hearing.
We
were anticipating a post-hearing comment from IERG
(Tr.
34), and
we were relying on an Agency statement that it was not prepared
to give a date when it intended to file its prOposed omnibus air
corrections rulemaking petition and its assertion that the Board
adoption need be in no hurry here,
estimating that our adoption
0135-0232
The primary Federal Register citation to the codification of
the federal policy statement into
a definition that the Board
uses in this opinion and order is as follows:
57 Fed. Reg.
3942
February 3,
1992
(amending 40 CFR
51.100(s)
(definition of “volatile
organic compound”), effective March
3,
1992).
This proceeding is also based on the last revision of the federal
policy statement prior to the codification of the definition that
now embodies it,
at the following Federal Register citation:.
56 Fed. Reg.
11418
March 18,
1991.
The March
18,
1991 revision to USEPA’s “Recommended Policy
on the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds” added five
compounds and four classes of compounds to the list of
negligibly-photochemically-reactive compounds exempted from
regulation as volatile organic compounds.
The February
3,
1992
action codified the existing USEPA policy,
by adoption of the 40
CFR 51.100(s) definition of “volatile organic compound”.
USEPA
simultaneously withdrew its recommended policy as moot on
February
3,
1992.
(57 Fed. Reg. 3943
(Feb.
3,
1992).)
•
In the course of codifying its policy, USEPA clarified it.
USEPA added language that excludes a number of carbon compounds
from the definition.
USEPA clarified the monitoring requirement
for exempted compounds and added specificity to the methods for
testing for those compounds.
HISTORICAL SUMMARY
The Board adopted the original federal Recommended Policy
statements and several subsequent revisions in.October,
1989:
R89—8
104 PCB 505, October
18,
1989;
13
Ill.
Reg.
17457,
effective October 27,
1989.
The Board further implemented and adopted federal revisions
to this policy as follows:
R91—10
September 12, 1991~15
Ill. Reg.
15564
& 15595,
effective October 11,
1991.
R91-24
This docket.
The Federal Register issues included in each docket are recited
in that respective opinion and order.
deadline was not until December,
1992.
(Tr.
35-36.)
0135-0233
4
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Notices of Proposed Amendments and requests for public
comments appeared in the Illinois Register on April 24,
1992.
The record remained open to receive public comments
(PCs) until
June
8,
1992.
Connie Bradway of the Administrative Code Division
of the Office of the Secretary of State submitted PC#1 on May 13,
1992.
Nidhi D.
Kapoor of the Ag~encysubmitted PC#2 on June
5,
1992.
The Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
(DCCA) submitted PC#3 on June 12,
1992.
PC#4 was dated May
4,
1992 from Nidhi Kapoor, an Agency attorney.
Chris Romaine,
of
the Agency,
and Katherine D. Hodge, on behalf of the Illinois
Environmental Regulatory Group
(IERG) testified at the public
hearing.
Three of the public comments do not require consideration as
part of the Board’s discussion of the substantive issues.
PC#1
outlines a small number of Administrative Code format corrections
we will make before filing the rules.
None of these relate to
the amended portions of the rules that appeared in the proposed
opinion and order of February 27,
1992.
PC#4 cites a number of
errors in the text of the proposed rule,
as it appeared in the
proposed opinion and order.
Many of these involve non—
substantive corrections effected by Board staff togain
publication of the Notices of Proposed Amendments in the Illinois
Register.
The Board will effect changes to the text of the
adopted amendments where necessary,
in order to accommodate these
comments.
PC#3 states that DCCA has found the proposed
amendments would have no significant impact on small businesses
in Illinois.
The following discussion addresses the comments
submitted by the Agency in PC#2 and the hearing testimony.
The Board
in this instance will not follow its frequent
custom of holding identical in substance regulations for up to 30
days after adoption before filing them (deadlines permitting);
the filing delay is intended primarily to afford the USEPA an
opportunity for final comment where the rules are necessary to
secure federal program authorization.
The regulations here,
however, are adopted in response to a State initiative rather
than in response to a federal program requirement, and the Agency
has requested that we expedite this proceeding.
DISCUSSION
At 56 Fed.
Reg.
11418, March 18,
1991, USEPA announced a
change in its “Recommended Policy on the Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds”,
adding five halocarbon compounds and four
classes of perfluorocarbon compounds to the list of negligibly
photochemically reactive compounds exempt from regulation under
state implementation plans.
Those compounds are as follows:
1.
2-chloro-1, 1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)
0 I35-O23t~
5
2.
Pentafluoroethane
(HFC-125)
3.
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane
(HFC-134)
4.
1, 1, 1—trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)
5.
1,1-difluoroethane
(HFC-152a)
Those classes of compounds are as follows:
1.
Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated
alkanes.
2.
Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated
ethers with no unsaturations.
3.
Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated
tertiary amines with no unsaturations.
4.
Sulphur—containing perfluorocarbons with no unsatura—
tions and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluo-
rine.
Under this policy,
states may not take credit for controlling
these compounds in their ozone state implementation plans
(SIPs).
USEPA simultaneously proposed to amend the federal implementation
plan
(FIP)
for Chicago and to amend 40 CFR 51 to add a general
definition of VOM consistent with its policy revision.
(57 Fed.
Reg. 3945
(Feb.
3,
1992);
56 Fed. Reg.
11387
(Mar.
18,
1991).)
USEPA adopted the new definition of VOM effective March
3,
1992.
(57 Fed.
Reg. 3941
(Feb.
3,
1992).)
USEPA withdrew its policy
revision as moot when it finally adopted the new definition of
VOM, which,
in effect, codified the revised policy.
(57 Fed.
Reg.
3944—45
(Feb.
3,
1992); ~
56
Fed. Reg. at 11388
& 11419.)
Section 9.1(e) Mandate
In R91-10, the Board raised the issue of what impact the
federal adoption of the exemptions as a rule and accompanying
withdrawal of the recommended federal policy would have on its
Section 9.1(e)
mandate.
After a full discussion of this issue,
the Board determined that the Section 9.1(e) mandate would apply
to a codified policy because the heart of the mandate is the
language:
“The Board shall exempt from regulation under the
State Implementation Plan for ozone the volatile organic
compounds which have been determined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to be exempt from regulation under state
implementation plans for ozone due to negligible photochemical
reactivity.”
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989 ch.
111½, par.
1009.1(e).)
The Board determined that the statutory language relating to “the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency exemptions or deletion of
exemptions published in policy statements on the control of
0 135-0235
volatile organic compounds in the Federal Register
.
.
.“
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½, par.
1009.1(e))
further authorized us
to employ an “unorthodox”, non—codified source as the basis for
the exemptions.
(Opinion and order of September 12,
1991 in R91-
10 at 5—7.)
The Board concluded as follows:
Under this analysis, the clear intent of the
General Assembly is that the Board must adopt the
federal exemptions by identical—in—substance
rulemaking.
The mandate that the Board apply federal
policy statements to this end is further authorization
to base those regulations on their presently—existing
sole source:
federal policy statements.
If USEPA
chooses to employ the more conventional regulatory
approach of codifying the exemptions, the mandate
remains that the Board must adopt those exemptions by
identical—in—substance procedures.
The Board believes that this is the interpretation
that will best implement the intent of the General
Assembly as embodied in Section 9.1(e).
If the Board
errs in its assessment,
the General Assembly is free to
further clarify its intent by later legislative
amendment.
However, the Board believes that by
proceeding with this rulemaking despite USEPA’S
prospective change in approach, we will achieve the
benefits for Illinois industry that the General
Assembly desires, and we will attain greater consis-
tency with the federal scheme for ozone control.
Therefore, the Board
is adopting the proposed
amendments without regard to the possibility that USEPA
will likely moot the federal policy statement upon
which
it is based.
The possibility exists that the
Board will face the prospect of basing future
amendments on federal rules, rather than on the policy
statements referred to in Section 9.1(e).
The Board
will address that issue when it arises.
(Opinion and order of September 12,
1991 in R91-10 at
7—8.)
The intervening codification of the recommended federal
policy now confronts the Board with this issue.
Without further
elaboration of the reasons set forth in R91—10, the Board hereby
determines that Section 9.1(e) mandates that we adopt the revised
policy on negligibly-reactive compounds based on the codified
USEPA exemptions from its definition of “volatile organic
compound”
(the same as “volatile organic material” in the
Illinois Part 211,
215,
218, and 219.regulations)
at 40 CFR
51.100(s).
USEPA withdrew its recommended policy because it
became moot as a result of the adoption of this definition as a
0135-0236
7.
regulation.
We view the withdrawal as a ministerial act having
no further effect on the Board’s mandate.
Parts Affected
In R91-10, the Board discussed the Agency observation that
amendment of the Section 211.122 definition of VOM did not affect
the corresponding definitions of “volatile organic compound”, at
Section 203.145,
and “volatile organic material”,
at Sections
218.104 and 219.104.~ Since Parts 218 and 219 became effective
after the publication of the Notice of Proposed Amendments for
R91-lO, the Board could not include amendment of those Parts in
that docket without causing significant delay.
In fact, the
Agency advocated delay in that docket until USEPA adopted the
proposed 40 CFR 51.100(s) definition.
The Board concluded that
this did .not warrant delay in the R9l-10 proceeding.
(~
Opinion and order of September 12,
1991 in R9l—10 at 8—10.)
Rather,
we reserved this docket to accomplish the amendment of
Parts 203,
218,
and 219 to reflect the revised federal
recommended policy.
Now that USEPA has codified its policy on negligibly—
reactive compounds, the Board proceeds to harmonize the
definitions of VOM appearing at Parts 203,
211,
218,
and 219 with
that policy.
Further, USEPA effected some minor clarifications
of its recommended policy in the Federal Register preamble
accompanying the adoption and in the text of the new definition
of “volatile organic compound.”
The clarifications relate to
exclusions of certain inorganic carbon compounds (i.e.,
the
inclusion of only “organic” carbon compounds),
the monitoring
requirement, and state and federal authority to require
monitoring.
These clarifications warrant re—examination of the
R91-10—amended Section 211.122 definition and Section 215.109
monitoring requirement.
The Agency raises the issue of whether Section 9.1(e)
authorizes the Board to amend Parts 203,
215,
218, and 219 to
embody the new federal definition.
The Agency argues that the
Board is without statutory authority to amend any definition but
Part 211
in an identical in substance rulemaking pursuant to
Section 9.1(e).
The Agency argues that such amendments must
~
As previously noted,
Part 203 sets forth the rules
applicable to construction and modification of major stationary
sources; Part 218 governs emissions of organic material from
stationary sources located in the Chicago metropolitan area
(Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, NcHenry and Will counties); and Part
219 governs the emissions of organic material from stationary
sources located in the metropolitan East St. Louis area
(Madison.
Monroe, and St. Clair counties).
0135-0237
8
occur
in a “regular” rulemaking proceeding under Title VII of the
Act.
The Board disagrees.
As noted in our opinion and order of September 12,
1991 in
R91-10 and cited again above, the first sentence of Section
9.1(e)
states the Board’s mandate:
The Board shall exempt from regulation under the State
Implementation Plan for ozone the volatile organic
compounds which have been determined by the
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency to be exempt from
regulation under state implementation plans for ozone
due to negligible photochemical reactivity.
We note that the scope of the mandate covers the state
implementation plans without exception.
The rest of Section
9.1(e) specifies procedures.
Two
problems relating to statutory
cOnstruction have arisen in areas where the statutory procedural
language of Section 9.1(e) differs from the identical
in
substance procedural language found elsewhere in the Act.
The
two pertinent statutory construction problems are:
(1) the
procedural language of this provision specifies that the Board
use federal policy statements while remaining silent on the use
of federal regulations; and
(2) the language specifies that the
Board shall amend its regulatory definition of volatile organic
material in Part 211 while remaining silent on amending VOM
definitions
in other Parts.
Regarding the problem of statutory silence with respect to
the use of federal regulations as the basis of Board rulemaking,
the Agency has agreed with the Board that the Section 9.1(e)
silence does not preclude the use of federal regulations.
This
is even though “federal regulations” are specified in all other
identical in substance statutory provisions.
Thus,
the Board and
the Agency have mutually re~ectedthe principle of expressio
unius est exclusio alterius
on this issue.7
The interpretation
~
Meaning,
“the expression of one thing excludes all
others.”
~
The “federal policy statements” language was inserted
because the Board needed express authority to use a federal
policy statement.
However, this begs the question relating to
the absence of express authority to use federal regulations;
“federal regulations” are specified in all other identical
in
substance statutory provisions.
When Section 9.1(e) was
originally drafted, the fact that the USEPA might choose to
codify the exemptions was not foreseen.
This buttresses the
Board’s construction of statutory intent.
Similar unanticipated
problems have occurred before where the Board determined that it
01350238
that Section 9.1(e)
allows the use of federal rules was a
perfectly appropriate statutory construction which avoided
disharmony by looking at the silence problem in context, rather
than by examining the chosen words in isolation.8
Indeed, to
have construed the omission in isolation would have rendered the
section’s mandate incapable of full implementation,
since USEPA
has already shifted to the use of federal regulations to
implement its VON exception policy and discontinued its use of
technical policy statements.
The Board believes that one must similarly examine the
specific reference to Part 211 in context, rather than in
isolation.
We must again first look to the mandate, quoted
above.
It is quite clear that the Board is mandated to adopt all
of the federal exemptions that are exempted from regulation under
the ozone SIP.9
The only procedural authority in the Act for the
Board to adopt the federal exemptions, without first considering
their substantive merits,
is the identical in substance procedure
provided in Section 9.1(e).
Moreover, the Board cannot consider
the substantive merits of the exemptions because the. Board must
adopt the exemptions in any event so as not to conflict with
Section 9.1(e),
which specifically provides that Title VII of the
Act and Section 5 ef the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
shall
not apply.
The General Assembly intended that the identical
in
substance procedures,
including those of Section 7.2(b)
(also
referenced in Section 9.1(e))
be stand—alone exceptions to the
requirements for general rulemaking in the Act and the APA.
was necessary to adopt certain federal RCRA statutory provisions
notwithstanding the fact that its RCRA identical in substance
mandate
is to adopt federal regulations.
(See.
e.g., R87-39
(June 16,
1988)
at
7,
8
&
10; see also R90—2
(July
3,
1990)
at
17.)
S
The canons of construction are rules of interpretative
convenience rather than inflexible legal principles.
.
.
.
Thus,
the doctrine of expressio unius, that the express statutory
mention of certain things impliedly excludes others not
mentioned, has ample exception where the court feels that the
others were not intended to be excepted.”
(Nutting, C.,
Elliot,
S.
& Dickerson,
R., Legislation at 471
(4th ed.
1969)
(West)).)
~
“In construing statutes,
it is said that the preamble
usually contains the motives and inducements to the making of the
act,
and resort to the preamble may therefore be useful in
ascertaining the causes which lead to the passage of the act or
the mischiefs intended to be remedied thereby.”
(Legislation,
supra, at 500
(citing Prewitt
v. Warfield (1941),
203 Ark.137,
156 S.W.2d 238).)
0135-0239
10
It is clear from the face of Section 9.1(e)
that the federal
exemptions from regulation are mandated to apply throughout
Illinois.
Thus,
it also must follow that the federally-derived
exemptions listed in the Part 211 definition supersede any
differing VON definitions found elsewhere in the regulations.
Consequently, the only avenue for curing the problem is by simple
correction of the conflicting definitions, without substantive
review.
The only procedural course of action for simple
correction of the conflicting definitions is to use the identical
in substantive procedure linked to the mandate.
To construe the specific mention of Part 211 as precluding
correction of other Parts
in an identical in substance proceeding
is to create
a regulatory gridlock that leaves definitions that,
by their silence,
are in conflict with the statute.
We note that
such a construction would never even allow any recodification
that would place Part 211 anywhere else.
To not be able to
correct Parts 203 and 215 and the more recent Parts 218 and 219
is not compatible with the Board’s statutory mandate.
Thus,
such
a construction must be rejected.
•
In essence, the Board believes that it is inconsistent to
address the “federal policy statement/regulation” problem by,
on.
the one hand, construing it in the context of the mandate, while,
on the other hand,
addressing the “Part 211/other Parts” problem
by construing it in isolation from the mandate.
We believe that
the mention of “federal policy statements” and “Part 211” are
examples of the “ample exception” from the doctrine of “expressio
unius”,
noted above,’0 where mention of certain things does not
mean that the legislature intended that others be excepted.
We also note that it is inconsistent to construe the silence
relating to codified federal exemptions in context while
construing the silence relating to codification of the exemptions
at Parts other than Part 211 in isolation.
This is especially so
where the definitions at Parts 218 and 219 did not even exist and
the Part 211 definition applied throughout the state when the
legislature drafted Section 9.1(e).
For the reasons stated above, the Board maintains that the
mandate of Section 9.1(e) must be construed in context.
We
conclude that the Board not only has the authority but also a
mandate to bring Parts
203, 218 and 219 into harmony with Part
211.
Further, the identical in substance procedure of Section
9.1(e)
is the only statutory procedure by which the conflicting
provisions can be “corrected” to conform to Part 211.
~
See supra notes
6
&
8.
01 35-02L~0
11
Federal Clarification of “Organic”
At 40 CFR 52.741(a),
USEPA has a definition of “organic
material..”
This definition excludes certain carbon compounds
that are not organic.
On February
3,
1992,
USEPA excluded
certain of these compounds from the definition of “volatile
organic compound” with the following language:
“any compound of
carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic carbides and carbonates,
and ammonium carbonate.”
(40
CFR 51.looçs),
as added at 57 Fed. Reg. 3945
(Feb.
3,
1992)
(effective March
3,
1992).)
This added language is identical to the Illinois definition
of “organic compound”, and
is essentially similar to parallel
language in the definitions of “organic material”,
as presently
codified at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 211.122, 218.104, and 219.104.
The
definitions of “volatile organic material”, also at these
Sections, depend on the definition of “organic compound”
in such
a way that there is no need for the Board to add language to
further clarify any of these three definitions.
The Section
203.145 definition of “volatile organic compound” includes, inter
alia,
exclusion of “carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
carbonic
acid, metal carbides, metal carbonates,
rand) ammonium carbonate
•
.
..“
Therefore,
no revision of this Section is required by
this federal clarification.
The Agency comments in PC# 2 that the Board should integrate
the definition of “organic material” into the. definition of
“volatile organic material”,
so there
is only one definition.
While the Board agrees that this may be desirable, the present
record will not allow this at this time.
There has been no
consideration of the possible substantive effect of doing so.
For example,
is the bare phrase “organic material” material to
any segment of the air regulations other than the definition of
“volatile organic material”?
The Board cannot effect such an
amendment in the limited context of this rulemaking.
The Federal Monitoring Requirement
The codification of the USEPA policy in the definition of
“volatile organic compound” at 40 CFR 51.100(s) raises issues
related to the monitoring requirement.
In adopting R91-10, the
Board embodied its best understanding of the previously-
enunciated USEPA policy relating to the occasional need to
monitor for negligibly—reactive compounds.
The Board observed
that there were certain circumstances under which TJSEPA stated
that monitoring might be required as a precondition to a
compound’s exemption.
However, we noted that Senn Park Nursing
Center
v. Miller
(118 Ill. App.
3d 504, 455 N.E.2d 153
(1st Dist.
1983), aff’d 104 Ill.
2d 169, 470 N.E.2d 1069
(1984)) would
require codification of any authority to require any such
monitoring.
In conclusion, we codified the USEPA—enumerated
OI35-02iI
12
circumstances that would necessitate monitoring:
Where
direct quantification of volatile organic material
emissions is not possible due to any of the following
circumstances which make it necessary to quantify the exempt
compound emissions in order to quantify volatile organic
material emissions:
a)
VOM5 and exempted compounds are mixed together in the
same emissions;
b)
There are a large number of exempted compounds in the
same emissions; or
c)
The chemical composition of the exempted compounds in
the emissions is not known.
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.109; ~
R9l-10 Opinion and
order of September 12,
1991 at 15-16.)
In the codified policy, USEPA authorizes the states to
require monitoring for the exempted compounds.
Whether or not
Illinois reserves the authority to require monitoring, USEPA
reserves the right to require such monitoring that demonstrates
the amount of exempt compounds in a source’s emissions.
USEPA
states as follows in the new definition of VOM:
(2)
For purposes of determining compliance with
emissions limits,
VON)
will be measured by the
test methods in the approved State implementation
plan
(SIP)
or 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
as
applicable.
Where such a method also measures
compounds with negligible photochemical
reactivity,
these negligibly-reactive compounds
may be excluded as
VON
if the amount of such
compounds is accurately quantified, and such
exclusion is approved by the state.
(3)
As a precondition to excluding these compounds as
VON
or at any time thereafter,
the state
may
require an owner or operator to provide monitoring
or testing methods and results demonstrating, to
the satisfaction of the state,
the amount of
negligibly—reactive compounds in the source’s
emissions.
(4)
For purposes of Federal enforcement for a specific
source, the (USEPA
shall use the test methods
specified in the applicable EPA-approved SIP,
in a
permit issued pursuant to a program approved or
promulgated under title V of the
federal
Clean
Air
Act,
or under 40 CFR part 51,
subpart I or
1)1 ~-fl2li~
13.
appendix 5, or under 40 CFR parts 52 or 60.
The
US
EPA~shall not be bound by any State
determination as to appropriate methods for
testing or monitoring negligibly-reactive
compounds if such determination is not reflected
in any of the above provisions.
Thus, the purpose of the monitoring is to quantify VOMs,
as the
Board perceived in R91-10.
Further, although USEPA is leaving to
state discretion whether the state requires the source to monitor
or whether the state itself monitors, USEPA will require the
monitoring as needed to quantify VON5.
(~
57 Fed. Reg.
3944
(Feb.
3,
1992).)
As to analytic methodology for analyses, the present
Illinois definition of VON refers to the methods incorporated by
reference at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.105.”
That Section includes
numerous references——among them is 40 CFR 60.
If part of an
approved SIP, the methods would satisfy the first segment of new
40 CFR51.100(s)(2).
Further, since Section 215.105 refers to 40
CFR 60,
it includes 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
It thus includes
the source in the second segment of section 51.l00(s)(2).
We
believe that no amendment is necessary to either Section 211.122
(definition of VON) or Section 215.105 incorporations by
reference)
on this basis.
For these reasons, the Board believes that we accurately
assessed the scope of the federal policy on September 12,
1991 in
R91—10.
No amendment to any Section is necessary based on
further federal elaboration of its policy.
The Board concludes
that it is necessary to include the circumstances enumerated as
subsections
(a) through
(c).
The minor amendment that the Board proposed was to add a
Board Note to Section 215.109 that would direct the attention of
the regulated community to the federal definition at 40 CFR
•51.100(s)(2) through (s)(4).
In particular,
this Board Note
directed attention to federal paragraph
(s) (4)
and 57
Fed. Reg.
3944
(Feb.
3,
1992), in which USEPA makes it clear that it
remains not bound by state determinations as to monitoring for
negligibly—reactive compounds.
The Board invited public comment as to whether the existing
regulatory language adequately embodies USEPA’s codified policy
“
The Sections 218.104 and 219.104 definitions of VON
provide:
“For purposes of determining compliance with emission
limits, VOC will be measured by the approved test methods.
.
.
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.104
& 219.104
(definitions of “volatile
organic material”).)
01 35-02t~3
14
and intent.
In addition to the amendments to Sections 203.145,
218.104, and 219.104, the Board opened the monitoring provision
at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.109 by proposing a minor amendment.
This would have allowed amendment had public comments indicated
the need to do so.
The Agency raised significant concerns with
regard to the monitoring requirement that the Board must address.
Initially,
the Agency suggests that the Board should proceed
to amend Part 211 only, and that we leave the Part 203,
215,
218,
and 219 amendments for a future omnibus air corrections docket.
(Tr. 7-8.)
This issue has been fully discussed.
The Agency also
suggests that the Board basically copy the federal definition,
including the provision for monitoring it contains, into the Part
211 definition of “volatile organic material”.
(Tr.
20—21;
Ex.
1.)
The discussion below deals with the propriety of a fully-
integrated definition,
but for the purposes of this segment,
a
comparison of the Agency’s alternative and the proposed language
i~warranted.
The Agency proposes the following language relating to
monitoring for exempted compounds:
2)
For purposes of determining compliance with
emissions limits, VOM will be measured by the test
methods in the approved implementation plan or 40
CFR part 60, appendix A,
incorporated by reference
at Sections 215.105, 218.112, and 219.112,
as
applicable or by source—specific test methods
which have been established pursuant to a permit
issued pursuant to a program approved or
promulgated under Title V of the Clean Air Act or
under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I
or Appendix S,
incorporated by reference at Sections 218.112 and
219.112,
as applicable.
Where such a method also
measures compounds with negligible photochemical
reactivity, these negligibly-reactive compounds
may be excluded as VON if the amount of such
compounds is accurately quantified,
and such
exclusion is approved by the Agency.
(3)
As a precondition to excluding these compounds as
VOC or at any time thereafter,
the Agency may
require an owner or operator to provide monitoring
or testing methods and results demonstrating, to
the satisfaction of the Agency, the amount of
negligibly—reactive compounds in the source’s
emissions.
(4)
The USEPA shall not be bound by any State
determination as to appropriate methods for
testing or monitoring negligibly-reactive
compounds if such determination is not reflected
UI 35-02e~
15
in any of the above provisions.
As
is apparent, this deviates little from the language of the
federal definition of VOC.
With respect to each of these
subsections, the Board has ample reasons to primarily decline to
follow the Agency’s suggestions, although we change some of the
wording of the proposed amendments
in response to the Agency’s
comments.
As an initial aside,
the Agency has suggested that it has
reason to believe that the exemptions as proposed would not gain
federal SIP approval by USEPA.
(PC#2 at 3.)
However, the Agency
is non-specific
in detailing any potential deficiencies in this
context, and in response to a hearing officer question intended
to gain any specific information, the Agency witness chiefly
involved in this process was unaware of any discussions with
USEPA.
(Tr.
33.)
This is insufficient, without more,
to address
federal SIP approvability.
The major elements of 40 CFR 51.100(s) (2), which the Agency
wants the Board to incorporate as a first subsection to the
Section 211.122 definition of VOM, are as follows:
1.
Specification of test methods for determining
compliance with VON emission limitations (those
specified by the SIP or 40 CFR 60, appendix A), and
2.
Provision for exclusion of exempted compounds from
measured emissions if
(1) the amount of the exempted
compounds in the emissions
is ~ccurately quantified and
(2)
the state approves the exclusion.
Sections 215.102,
218.105, and 219.105 already specify the test
methods to be used for determining compliance, and all three
Sections reference 40 CFR 60, appendix A.
Nothing would be
gained by repetition in the definition of VON.
In and of
themselves,
the testing methods used will not determine whether
any compound is exempted from regulation.
The federal exemptions
are the real focus of this proceeding.
Similarly,
Section
215.109, adopted September 12,
1991 in R91—10, clearly requires
that in order to quantify VON emissions, members of the regulated
community must quantify the amount of exempted compounds in their
emissions where their monitoring includes exempted compounds.
The Board does not believe that addition of this language to the
definition adds to the Agency’s authority.
As to the language added to the federal base text by the
Agency--i.e., that relating to source-specific testing methods
incorporated into an Agency—issued permit and the string of
citations to various federal rules—-the Agency has presented
nothing to support a conclusion that this is in fact part of the
federal rule.
Further, conferring the authority on the Agency by
0135-02t&5
16
Section 215.109 to require monitoring of exempted compounds would
render redundant the appearance of such language in the
definition.
These conditions could include provisions for test
methodology and emissions monitoring that excludes exempted
compounds.
If it desires any authority for alternative testing
methodology that it does not already posses, or if it wants
clarification that it can deviate from the methods specified by
Sections 215.102, 218.105, and 219.105, this is a subject more
appropriate to a general rulemaking proceeding.
Therefore,
the
Agency assertiOns that the Illinois exemptions from the
definition of VOM, the actual subject of this matter,
are somehow
different from those promulgated by USEPA appear unfounded.
The major elements of 40 CFR 51.100(s) (3)
that the Agency
seeks to incorporate into the definition of VON are as follows:
1.
The state ~y
require a source to submit monitoring or
testing methods and results quantifying its emissions
of exempted compounds,
2.
The state ~y
require such methods and results as a
precondition to exemption of these compounds,
and
3.
The state ~y
require such methods and results at any
time.
Similarly to the first subsection the Agency wants to add,
Section 215.109 allows the Agency to require the monitoring under
circumstances where the measurement of VOM5 for the purposes of
compliance would include measurement of exempted compounds——i.e.,
where exempted compounds somehow interfere with the actual object
of monitoring:
the quantification of VOM emissions.
As
discussed in R91—lO, this is as far as USEPA stated
it intended
to go with the monitoring.
To go even farther and grant the
language the Agency requests would go too far.
First,
as
discussed in R9l—10,
Illinois administrative law. would require
the codification of the circumstances where an agency can require
the monitoring of something beyond the pale of regulation.
Second, the Agency’s proposed language would grant it carte
blanche to require monitoring under any circumstances.
This is
clearly beyond the scope of the federal rule exempting the
compounds.
Third, the federal language allows,
it does not
mandate, that a state may require the monitoring and testing.
Fourth, Section 9.1(e) requires that the Board adopt exemptions
for these compounds,
not authorize the Agency to exempt them once
it is satisfied with testing and monitoring.
Finally, there
is
another important point the Agency did not raise.
Unless compounds in a source’s emissions that should be
exempt are indeed recognized as exempted, their continued
regulation as VON raises the problems of
(a)
being inconsistent
with Section 9.1(e), and
(b) creating a question as to how to
01 35-02~&
17
assure that the SIP
is consistent with USEPA not allowing the
states to take credit for reductions in emissions of exempted
compounds.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board declines to add the
Agency-recommended language to the Section 211.122 definition of
“volatile organic material”.
However,
in the course of its
arguments,
the Agency highlights two possible deficiencies in the
Board’s embodiment of the federal exemptions.
First, USEPA
states that the state may require the submission of testing
methods with monitoring results.
The Board will add language to
Section 215.109 that clarifies that the Agency may require
submission of the methodologies along with the numbers.
The second point raised by the Agency is more troublesome.
The Agency highlights that the proposed exemptions do not provide
for monitoring under Parts 218 and 219.
This is problematic
because the Board did not propose a counterpart to Section
215.109 in either of those two Parts.
Administrative Code rules
do not normally allow adoption of a rule not initially proposed
by the adopting agency.
Narrow exceptions to this general rule
exist where the new provision is actually a part of the original
rulemaking proposal.
Since the federally—encouraged testing and
monitoring requirement is included in the exemptions proposed for
these parts, the Board will adopt and file new Sections 218.113
and 219.113 entitled “Testing and Monitoring for Exempted
Coipounds” which reference to the monitoring requirement of
Section 215.109.
If an Administrative Code problem arises with
the use of this approach, we will adopt these Sections in a
subsequent docket.
The major elements of 40 CFR 51.100(s) (4), which the Agency
advocates that the Board incorporate into the definition of VON,
do not include any state requirement.
Rather, this federal
provision merely states the methods USEPA will use to determine
compliance and reserves USEPA’s right to determine appropriate
testing or monitoring methods notwithstanding the state.
The
State of Illinois has no authority to enforce this provision.
The Board Note to Section 215.109 includes the gist of this
information and directs attention to its source:
40 CFR
51.100(s)
(4).
This is enough.
The Agency further advocates that
the Board adopt
a series of incorporations by reference of
federal testing and monitoring provisions.
This suggestion also
goes beyond the scope of this proceeding (since they are not
requirements for state exemption of these compounds), and as
such, they are more appropriate to another proceeding.
The foregoing obviates individualized consideration of the
various alternative options the Agency presented for Board
consideration.
The Board believes that the course, we are taking
in this proceeding is the one that best fulfills our mandate
under Section 9.1(e) and that most fully embodies the federal
0135-02L~7
18
exemptions from regulated volatile organic materials.
In so
saying, we of course will revisit this in another docket if the
Agency feels that further action is justified.
Review of Exemptions
An ancillary to the
issues of testing and monitoring is that
of the mode for review of Agency decisions.
The regulatory
language chosen at Section 215.109 would require a source to
provide monitoring or testing methods and results as a
precondition to exemption of the listed compounds from its
emissions.
The Board anticipates that the Agency will implement
today’s amendments pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 201.209.
If
necessary, this would give a permittee an opportunity to submit
the required testing and monitoring information that would
demonstrate its VON emissions.
If the Agency is satisfied with
the information submitted,
a modified permit may issue.
This is
a Section 39 action of the Agency.
Otherwise,
if
a permit issues
with conditions objectionable to the source,
or
if no permit
issues, the source can appeal the Agency determination pursuant
to Section 201.210 and Section 40 of the Act.
Thus,
the rights
of appeal are preserved in the regulated community.
The above discussions of the issues raised by the public
comments and hearing testimony addresses specific approaches the
Board has taken to each Section involved in this proceeding.
Thus, we will not reiterate the comments in the following
discussions as they relate to each specific Section amended.
Amendments to Section 203.145
The Section 203.145 definition of “volatile organic
compound” applies only within Part 203.
The Board adopted
it on
March 10,
1988
in R85-10,
effective March 22,
1988.
The words
“volatile organic compound” appear in Sections 203.206(b)
(“major
stationary source”), 203.207(b)
(“major modification of a
source”),
203.209(e)
(significant emissions determination),
203.303(d) (3) and
(e)
(baseline emissions offsets
determinations),
and 203.306 (analysis of alternative sites,
processes,
controls, etc.).
This definition is identical to the
Part 211 definition of “volatile organic material” with three
major exceptions:
1.
The Section 203.145 definition includes within its own
terms both the compounds exempted from the Section
211.122 definitions of “organic material”
(as not
“organic”)
and “volatile organic material”
(as
negligibly—reactive),
2.
The Section 203.145 definition does not refer to
analytical procedures for quantification of volatile
species (rather, this provision refers to volatility);
0 135-02~8
19
and
3.
Section 203.145 does not include several negligibly
reactive compounds exempted from the Section 211.122
definition in R89-8
(October 18,
1989)
and R91—1O
(September 12,
1991):
from R89-8:
chlorodifluoroethane
(HCFC—142b)
dichlorofluoroethane
(HCFC-14ib)
dichlorotrifluoroethane
(HCFC-123)
tetrafluoroethane (HFC—134a)
from R91—10:
2-chloro-1, 1, 1,2—tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)
1, 1-difluoroethane
(HFC-152a)
pentafluoroethane (HFC—125)
1,1,2, 2-tetrafluoroethane
(HFC-134)
1,1,1—trifluoroethane
(HFC-l43a)
The following classes of compounds:
cyclic,
branched,
or linear, completely
fluorinated alkanes;
cyclic,
branched,
or linear, completely
fluorinated ethers with no
unsaturations;
cyclic,
branched,
or linear, completely
fluorinated tertiary amines with no
unsaturations;
sulphur—containing perfluorocarbons with
no unsaturations and with sulfur bonds
only to carbon and fluorine.
The differences based on the unitary structure of Section
203.145 are immaterial.
The fact that the definition of
“volatile organic compound” does not refer to a separate
definition of “organic compound” does not affect its meaning.
This structural difference does not affect the size of the
regulated community or the activities that fall within the
Board’ s regulations.
The differences based on references to analytical methods
are not major, but they could potentially cause some entity to
fall under the purview of Part 203 that is not subject to
regulation under Part 215 or vice versa.
Section 203.145 defines
the objects of interest as “present in the atmosphere in a
gaseous state.”
Section 211.122 defines those objects
for,the
purposes of Part 215)
as “participat(ing
in atmospheric
photochemical reactions.”
The purpose of the Section 203.145
definition is to permit entities subject to regulation under Part
215.
To the extent there are species that are “present in the
0135-O2L~9
20
atmosphere in a gaseous state” or “participat(ing
in atmospheric
photochemical reactions” but not both, there is a potential gap
between the permit requirement and the emissions limitations.
It is interesting to note the extent of the changes made by
USEPA in adopting its section 51.100(s)
definition of “volatile
organic compound.”
USEPA simultaneously amended its sections
51.165(a) (1) (xix),
51.166(b).(29),
and part 51, appendix S
(II)(A)
lists of volatile organic compound exclusions to take the form of
a definition of “volatile organic compound”, which states that
the meaning of this term is given at section 51.100(s).
40 CFR
51.165 sets forth the federal permit requirements.
Section
51.166 sets forth the prevention of significant deterioration
requirements.
Appendix
S is a clarification of the USEPA offset
policy.
These are all subjects within the scope of Part 203 of
the Illinois rules.
In adopting the definition of VON, USEPA
stated that it intended only to codify existing policy and not to
effect any substantive change.
(~
57
Fed. Reg. 3943
(Feb.
3,
1992).)
Therefore,
USEPA now employs the same definition of
“volatile organic compound” for all purposes——for both permitting
and for setting ‘emissions limitations, and it is their apparent
intent that this was always so.
The differences in the Section 203.145 and 211.122
definitions relating to exempted compounds are the primary focus
of this docket.
The Section 203.145 definition includes all
compounds exempted under the federal recommended policy as of the
date of its adoption
(March 10,
1988).
USEPA has since twice
updated that policy
(at 54
Fed. Reg.
1987, January 18,
1989,
and
at 56
Fed. Reg.
11418, March 18,
1991).
The Board followed suit
by amending the Section 211.122 definition of “volatile organic
material” in R89—8,
October 18,
1989 (effective October 27,
1989),
and R91-10, September 12,
1991 (effective October 11,
1991).
However, the Board did not amend the Section 203. 145
definition at those times.
Rather, the Board reserved this
docket for that purpose.
Today, we amend 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
203.145 so all the compounds exempted from regulation under Part
215
(and Parts 218 and 219) are also exempted from regulation
under Part 203.
Since Part 203 sets forth the permitting requirements for
activities regulated under Part 215
(for which Section 211.122
provides the operative definition of “volatile organic
material”), the Board believes that the Section 203.145
definition of “volatile organic compound” should have the same
meaning that “volatile organic material” has for the purposes of
Part 215.
We believe that this is presently the case,
but
identical meaning is best accomplished through the same
definitional language.
The most efficient way to accomplish this
is to place the definitional language in one location and refer
to it from all other locations.
This has the combined effects of
more closely tracking the federal definition of “volatile organic
0135-0250
21
compound” and exempting all negligibly—reactive compounds from
state regulation as VOMs.
This also facilitates future
amendments and minimizes the possibility of future oversight and
the resulting discrepancies.
For these reasons, the Board amends Section 203.145 so that
“volatile organic compound”, for the purposes of Part 203, means
“volatile organic material”,
as that term is defined at Section
211.122.
The Board does not take the additional step at this
time of substituting “volatile organic material” for “volatile
organic compound” where that term appears at Sections 203.206(b),
203.207(b),
203.209(e), 203.303(d)(3)
and
(e), and 203.306.
The
Board invited public comment as to whether this approach and the
chosen language adequately embody USEPA’s codified policy and
intent.
Amendments to Section 211.122
The Board amends the Section 211.122 definition of “volatile
organic material” to indicate the source of the exempted
compounds.
The Board adds a Board Note to this provision to
reference the federal 40 CFR 51.100(s)
definition of “volatile
organic compound” and 57
Fed. Reg. 3941
(Feb.
3,
1992), at which
USEPA adopted
it.
The Note also references 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
215.109, the monitoring requirement.
Amendments to 215.109
The Board amends Section 215.109 to indicate the source of
the monitoring requirement for negligibly—reactive, exempted
compounds.
The Board adds
a Board Note to this provision to
reference 56 Fed.
Reg.
11418
(Mar.
18,
1991), when TJSEPA
introduced the concept of such monitoring,
and the federal 40 CFR
51.100(s) definition of “volatile organic compound” and 57
Fed.
Reg. 3941
(Feb.
3,
1992), at which USEPA adopted it.
The Note
also references
35
Ill. Adm. Code 211.122, the definition of
“volatile organic material”.
The Board adopts a change to the proposed amendment of this
Section.
As discussed,
the Board adds reference to the Agency’s
authority to require the submission of testing and methods for
testing and monitoring.
Thus,
the preamble now reads as follows:
Any provision of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 211 notwithstanding,
the Agency may require an owner or operator to submit
monitoring or testing methods and results for any of
the compounds listed at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.122 as
exempted from the definition of “volatile organic
materialT” demonstrating the amount of exempted
compounds in the source’s emissions,
as a precondition
to such exemption~where direct quantification of
volatile organic material emissions.is not possible due
0135-0251
22
to any of the following circumstances which make it
necessary to quantify the exempt compound emissions in
order to quantify volatile organic material emissions:
This more linearly tracks the federal language of 40 CFR
51.100(s) (3) while retaining the limitations enunciated by USEPA
without codification and felt necessary by the Board to comport
with Illinois administrative law.
Amendments to Sections 218.104 and 219.104
As outlined above,
Part 218 sets forth the rules applicable
to emissions of volatile organic materials in the greater Chicago
metropolitan area, and Part 219 sets forth the rules applicable
for those emissions in the East St. Louis metropolitan area.
Each Part became effective on August 16,
1991
(by Board orders of
July 25,
1991,
in R91-7 for the Chicago area and R91-8 for the
East St. Louis area)
12
Section 218.104 sets forth the definition
of VOM for Part 218, and Section 219.104 sets forth the
definition for Part 219.
Both definitions use identical
language, with the exception of some language in Section 218.104
relating to the 3M Bedford Park facility,
and both are
essentially similar to the Section 211.122 definition of VON
prior to the VOM update,
in R91-10.
The language at Section
218.104 relating to the 3M facility exempts the classes of
compounds exempted from the Section 211.122 definition in R9l-10.
The language in both Sections 218.104 and 219.104 relating to the
treatment of the exempted compounds adds nothing to the language
already at Section 211.122.
For reasons similar to those recited for the Section 203.145
amendments above, the Board believes that references at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.104 and 219.104 to the definition of VON at Section
211.122
is the preferred method of updating these definitions.
This method assures not only that the present Part 215 exemptions
become Parts 218 and 219 exemptions,
it assures harmony in
meaning of the same term for all areas of the state.
It also
minimizes the likelihood of future disparity through subsequent
updates.
Therefore, we amend Sections 218.104 and 219.104
50
that “volatile organic material”,
for the purposes of Parts 218
and 219, means “volatile organic material”,
as that term is
defined at Section 211.122.
12
As also noted, this is less than, 30 days before the Board
Order that adopted the R91-10 amendments to the definition of
VON.
Therefore, Parts 218 and 219 could not have become a part
of that proceeding.
0135-0252
23
Sections 218.113 and 219.113
As discussed above,
the Board omitted the monitoring
requirements from the proposed amendments to Parts 218 and 219.
We correct that omission by adopting these two new Sections which
refer to the monitoring requirement of Section 215.109.
The
Board believes that the monitoring and testing requirement is an
integral part of the federal exemption of the various compounds.
Inclusion of those exemptions
in Parts 218 and 219 would
necessitate inclusion of the testing and monitoring requirement.
This opinion supports the following order:
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the following amendments to its
definitions of “volatile organic compound”,
at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
203.145, and “volatile organic material”,
at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
211.122, 218.104, and 219.104, and to the Section governing the
monitoring for negligibly-reactive compounds,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
215.109,
and adds new sections 218.113 and 219.113 pertaining to
monitoring for negligibly—reactive compounds.
Section 203.145
Volatile Organic Compound
“Volatile Organic Compound” means any chcmical compound of
carbon,
released to or prcscnt in the atmosphere in a gaseous
state,
including compounds which arc liquids
cit
standard
conditions,
but e~w1udingthe following compounds:
methane,
cthanc.
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metal
~rbidco,
metal carbonatcs,
ammonium
~
~
~~oro-
cthanc
(mcthylchloroformn), incthylenc chloridc, trichiorotri—
fluoroethanc
(Freon 113),
trichlorofluoromcthane
(CFC-11), di-
chiorodifluoromethanc (CFC-12), chlorodifluoromcthanc
(CFC-22),
trifluoromcthanc
(FC—23), trichlorotrifluorocthanc (CFC-113), di-
chlorotetrafluorocthanc (CFC-114),
chloropentafluorocthanc (CFC—
115).
Ctandard conditions incans a temperature of 70 F and a
pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute
(poia)-.”volatile
organic material”,
as that term is defined at 35 Ill.
Adxn.
Code
211.122.
(Source:
Amended at 16
Ill. Reg.
Section 211.122
)
Definitions
effective
“Volatile Organic Material”:
Any organic compound which participates in
atmospheric photocheniical reactions unless
0135-0253
24
specifically exempted from this definition.
Volatile organic material emissions shall be
measured by the reference methods specified under
40 CFR 60, Appendix A
(1986)
(no future amendments
or editions are included),
or,
if no reference
method is applicable,
may be determined by mass
balance calculations.
For purposes of this definition,
the following are
not volatile organic materials:
Chiorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b)
Chiorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)
Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115)
2-Chloro-1, 1,1,2—tetrafluoroethane
(HCFC—l24)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC—l2)
Dichlorofluoroethane
(HCFC-l4ib)
Dichloromethane
(Methylene chloride)
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
(CFC—114)
Dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123)
1, 1-Difluoroethane
(HFC-152a)
Ethane
Methane
Pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)
Tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)
1, 1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC—134)
Trichloroethane
(Methyl chloroform)
Trichlorofluoromethane
(CFC-1l)
Trichiorotrifluoroethane (CFC-1l3)
1,1, 1-Trifluoroethane
(HFC-143a)
Trifluoromethane (FC—23)
and the following classes of compounds:
Cyclic, branched,
or linear, completely
fluorinated alkanes.
Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated ethers with no
unsaturations.
Cyclic,
branched, or linear, completely
fluorinated tertiary amines with no
unsaturations.
Sulphur—containing perfluorocarbons with
no unsaturations and with sulfur bonds
only to carbon and fluorine.
BOARD NOTE:
Derived from 40 CFR
51.100(s)
(definition of “volatile
organic compound”),
as added at 57
Fed.
0I35-025~
25
Req.
3941
(Feb.
3,
1992).
USEPA or the
Agency may require monitoring to
demonstrate the amount of an exempted
compound in
a source’s emissions on a
‘case—by—case basis as a pre—condition to
exemption of that compound under certain
circumstances, such as where VOMs and
exempted compounds are mixed together,
there are a large number of exempted
compounds,
or the chemical composition
of the exempted compounds is not known.
See 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 215.108;
56
Fed.Reg.
11419—20.
Section 215.109
Monitoring for Negligibly-Reactive Compounds
Any provision of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 211 notwithstanding,
the
Agency may require an owner or operator to submit monitoring ~
testing methods and results for any of the compounds listed at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 211.122 as exempted from the definition of
“yolatile organic materialT” demonstrating the amount of exempted
compounds
in the source’s emissions,
as a precondition to such
exemption~where direct quantification of volatile organic
material emissions is not possible due to any of the following
circumstances which make it necessary to quantify the exempt
compound emissions in order to quantify volatile organic material
emissions:
a)
VONs and exempted compounds are mixed together in the
same emissions;
b)
There are a
large number of exempted compounds in the
same emissions; or
c)
The chemical composition of the exempted compounds in
the emissions is not known.
Board Note:
Derived from the USEPA “Recommended Policy
on the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds”,
as
amended at 56 Fed.
Req.
11418, March
18,
1991,
and
subsequently codified as 40 CFR 51.100(s),
as added at
57
Fed. Reg.
3941
(Feb.
3,
1992~.
See also 35
Ill.
Admn. Code 211.122 for the basic definition of “volatile
organic material.”
USEPA
is not bound by any state
determination as to monitoring.
40 CFR 51.100(s) (4).
(Source:
Amended at
16 Ill.
Reg.
,
effective
0135-0255
26
Section 218.104
Definitions
The following terms are defined for the purpose of this Part.
IICI f~5~
~1Tnr
~me
-~
~-
-~f
metnane.
-
L~
1411
L.i
I
rC~.1(.
1(111
nri
rlr
nr~’r
ii
r.nr~
U: fl U:
1
1
(11
“Volatile organic material
(VON)
or volatile organic
compound (VOC)” means
an-y organic compound which
participates in a
sphcr
pho~”~chcmi.~
This inc-l~’
-a~ny
ganic
~.
-,
following
~_.~ewi~_.
~“
~th~anc,methyl
chloroform
(1,1,1-trichl~~...c),CFC-l13
(trichlorotrifluorocthanc),
methyl
~
~44e
—
romcth
—
—
)
,
C’~”’
‘
2
_L
~
-—
—
~
- -
—
(dich1~. i4-f-~
(chi
difi
~__.-+
CFC—11~ (dichlor.~4-_4-.~5~1
,
CFC—115
(chl~.
~
a-#”
,,
HCFC-123
(dichiorotrifluoroethane),
HFC-134...
t~ianc),‘HCFC ~‘“5
(dich”~””
al.
,
t,
~
_~,
,!
.r
,
.Lt_
—
I
iU:1~-.I
I
I
U(1rUU:l.r
(I
I
f~rI I
1)
~ODCflt
ri
TC)(
II (‘4
r (lIT!
r
ri..—
i
i
I
tIC)’r(’)Tfl(’
-~-
IJr’_~
LU
I
U:FI
I I1VfIT
I
1Jn~nmU:Lnane)
n~InrI
...
uoroetncine~
I £
L.t~£~
I
~up~
iuoroethane)
~fl(l
H(:~(:—I~~n
4f~fl I~flfl1T
in~n~~.nn~._
-
-
These
~m~nnd~
I
1~. -be~..determined to
.
..
negligible ph~uchcmical
reactivity.”volatile organic material”,
as that term is
defined at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 211.122.
In addition, for the 3M Bedford
Park
facility in
Cook County, the following compounds shall not be
~
~ir~1~t~i
1r~
nr~~nr~
m~t
-11
r~r
velatile organic compounds
(and arc, therefore,
to
be treated as water for the purpose of calculating
the “less water” part of the coating or ink
composition) for a period of time not to exceed
one year after the date UCEPA acts on 3M’s
petition, pending as of the date of promulgation
of this rule,
which seeks to
-have
these
compounds
classiflcd as exempt compounds:
(1)
cyclic,
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated
alkanes,
(2)
cyclic,
branched,
or linear,
completely fluorinated ethers with no
unsaturations,
(3)
cyclic,
branched, or linear,
completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no
unsaturatlons, and
(4.)
sulfur containing
pcrfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with
sulfur bonds only to carbon and
fluorine-.-
For purposes of determining compliance with
em-ission limits, VOC will be measured by the
a-pprovcd test methods.
Where such a method also
inadvertently measures compounds with negligible
photochcmical reactivity,
an owner or operator may
e~-ude—~hesc
negligibly reactive compounds when
dctcrmi-ning compliance with an emissions standard.
0135-0256
27
Section 218.113
Monitoring for Negligibly-Reactive Compounds
The requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.109, which allows the
Agency to require testing and monitoring
for negligibly-reactive
compound as a precondition to their exemption from the definitior
of “volatile organic compound”, shall
apply to owners and
operators of sources sub-ject to this Part.
Section
219.104
Definitions
The following terms are defined for the purpose of this Part.
methyl
~1,1,l—trich~.,~
,,
CFC—113
(tr.ohlorotrifluorocthanc)
,
mcthy1cn~chloride
-‘.‘-octna..’~
LrL-i.
~uionioroa..~tiuoromcthanc),CFL—~
-(chlorodifluoromcthane),
FC-23
(trifluoromethane),
CFC-114
(dichlorotetrafluorocthane), CFC—115
(chloropcntafluoroothane), HCFC-123
-
~
TTF(~-1l~
~ecrar~uoroetnane1
,
HCFC-141b (dichiorofluoroethane)
and HCFC-142b (chiorodifluoroothane).
These compounds
have been determined to have negligible photochomical
rcactivity.”volatile organic material”, as that term is
defined at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 211.122.
‘
For purposes of determining compilance with
emission limits, VOC will be measured by the
test methods.
Where such a method also
comoound~with negligible
--~vcrtent1~
~
________
1
_~2~2~
fl
I-s
p1
It.
II
UU:UULiVIL~y,
Ufl
ow~cr
UL~
OpCLULOE
i~ay
~nesc negligibly reactive compounds when
determining compliance with an emissions standard.
Section 219.113
Monitoring for Negligibly-Reactive Compounds
The requirements of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 215.109, which allows the
Agency to require testing and monitoring for negligibly-reactive
compound as
a precondition to their exemption from the definition
of “volatile organic compound”,
shall apply
to owners and
operators of sources sublect to this Part.
0135-0257
“Volatile organic material
(VON)
or volatile organic
compound
(VOC)” means any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric photocheinical reactions.—
This includes any
nrcmnir~
mrirwin~ nt~hr~r
than
1-h~-~
following Compound....
r~h
1
ri
-r
t~i
fri rm
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
B. Forcade concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
do hereby certify that the abow.~opinion and order was
adopted on the
___________
day ~of
1992, by a
vote
of
______
Control Board
0 135-0258
