Illinois PoUutian Control Board

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

16,

1990

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

RACT DEFICIENCIES

-

)

 R89-16, Subdocket (A)

AMENDMENTS TO 35

 ILL.

 ADM.

)

 (Rulemaking)

CODE PARTS 211 AND 215

)

PROPOSED RULE.

 SECOND

 NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by J.D. Dunielle):

This matter conies before the Board upon a September 29,

 1989 proposal

for

amendments to 35

 Ill.

 Adrn.

 Code 201, 2l1~and 215

 filed by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

.

 The Board proposed first notice on

October

5,

 1989,

 and the proposal was officially published

 in the Illinois

Register on October

 20 and 27,

1989

at

13

 Ill.

 Reg. 16285 and 16645.

 A total

of five days of public hearing were held--December

 7 and

8,

1989

in

Springfield,

 Illinois, December

 14 and

15,

 1989 and January

19,

1990

in

Chicago, Illinois.

 Post-hearing comments were scheduled to be filed

on

February 9,

 1990.

 Based upon the record of

 R89-16 Subdocket

 (A) compiled

to

date, the Board today proceeds

 to second

 notice on a select portion of

the

first notice proposal.

 The remainder of the R89-16(A) proposal,

 i.e.,

 that

which

 is not

 being proposed for second notice today,

 is being

 transferred

to

the subdocket

 (8) proposal created by Board Order of February 8,

 1990.

BACKGROUND

This rulemaking proceeding has

 its inception,

 in part,

in

 the settlement

agreement submitted to resolve the lawsuit

 of Wisconsin

v.

 Reilly.

 As part of

that submittal, the State of Illinois agreed that

 it would submit

 to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

 (USEPA)

 ‘some or

all

of

the

reasonably available control technology (RACT)

 rules

and

 RACT rule

improvements

 specified for Illinois

 in Exhibit B,” which

 exhibit includes a

listing of deficiencies

 in the State Implementation Plan

 (SIP).

For

 its part in the

 settlement agreement, USEPA agreed:

to propose as federal measures RACT rules

 in accordance with an EPA

document dated May 25,

 1988 entitled “Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,

 and Deviations, Clarification To

Appendix

D

 of November 24,

 1987 Federal

 Register notice (‘Bluebook’)

for Illinois to remedy the deficiencies described

 in Exhibit

8,

by

December

31,

 1989 and consistent with federal

 laws (including the

*The Board notes that Deborah Stonich, new Assistant

 to Board Member

J.

Anderson, earlier appeared on behalf of the agency

 in this proceeding.

Ms.

Stonich has not participated

 in the Board’s deliberations on

 this proceeding

whatsoever.

I

—447

-2—

Administrative Procedure Act), to promulgate rules by the following

dates:

(i)

 March

18,

 1990,

 for rules that Illinois fails to submit

to the Illinois Pollution Control Board by September 30,

 1989, and

for rules for which, by December 31,

 1989,

 Illinois has failed

to

meet any one of the interim milestones specified

 in Exhibit C;

or

(ii)

 six months after any 1990 interim milestone specified in

Exhibit C that Illinois

 has failed to meet,

 but in

 no event later

than December 31,

 1990.

 (Settlement Agreement,

p.

 13).

Exhibit C,

 referred to under USEPA’s agreement, states

in

 its entirety

as

follows:

EXHIBIT

C

Action

 Deadline

Illinois

 EPA proposals filed

 9—30—89

Illinois Pollution Control Board

decides EcIS question and

publishes first notice

 12—22—89

Pollution Control Board holds

hearing and publishes second

notice

 3-16-90

JCAR completes action and PCB

adopts final

 rule

 5—25—90

As previously noted, the Agency filed

 its proposal on September

29,

 1989,

thereby satisfying the first “milestone” date of Exhibit C.

 In its proposal,

the Agency certified that the proposed amendments meet the “required

 rule”

definition contained

 in Section 28.2 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act),

 thereby invoking the Section 28.2 rulemaking process.

 The Board notes

that this

 is one of the first rulemaking proceedings

 in which the Section 28.2

rulemaking process has been invoked.

As

 a result, many of the issues

presented herein are

 of first impression.

On October

5,

 1989, the Board adopted the Agency’s proposal

 for first

notice.

 Without addressing

 the substantive merits

 of the proposal, the

 Board

proceeded to first notice

 simply to begin the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) rulemaking process.

 The Board noted that previously unregulated

 sources

might

 be affected and took its action to effectuate first

 notice publication

in the Illinois Register to alert the potentially regulated community to the

existence of this proceeding

 so that comments could

 be timely made.

 Also,

while

 Illinois had in no way whatsoever committed in the settlement agreement

to

 be bound by the rulemaking schedule

 set forth

 in Exhibit

C,

 the Board

stated that

 it would handle the proceeding on an expedited basis.

Further,

 on October 27,

 1989, the Board decided that an Economic

 Impact

Study

 (EcIS)

 need nut be

 prepared, thereby satisfying the second “milestone”

date of Exhibit C.

 The Board’s discussion of the EcIS issue

 is set forth

in

the Order of that date and will not be restated here.

 As a general overview

109—448

—3—

of the Board’s reasoning,

 the Board stated

 its belief that there would be

ample potential for consideration of the economic impact absent the

preparation of the EcIS.

 The Board noted that four days of hearing had been

scheduled and

 that additional days could

 be scheduled as needed thereafter.

Further,

 in response to an Agency assertion that there was a very limited

degree to which the Board could modify the proposal

 because of its “required”

 nature, the Board specifically noted the

 issue of the interplay between

Sections 28.2 and 27 of the Act and requested comment thereon.

The third “milestone” date of Exhibit C

 is March

16,

 1990,

 by which the

Board

 is to have held public hearings and to publish second notice.

 Public

hearings have been held, and the objective of this Order

is

 to proceed to

second notice on certain of the proposed amendments.

As

 a result, the third

“milestone” date is satisfied.

REQUIRED RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

As previously noted,

 the Agency certified that the proposed amendments

meet the “required rule”

 definition

 of Section 28.2 of the Act, thereby

invoking

 the expedited Section 28.2 rulemaking process.

 Section 28.2

provides:

a.

 For the purposes of

 this Section, “required rule”

 means

a rule that

is

 needed

 to meet the requirements of

the

federal Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean

Air Act (including required submission of a state

Implementation Plan),

 or Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, other than

 a rule required

to

 be adopted

under subsection

 (c) of Section

 13, Section

 13.3,

Section 17.5,

 subsection

 (a) or

 (d) of Section 22.4, or

subsection

 (a) of Section 22.7.

b.

 Whenever

 a required rule

 is needed, the Board shall

adopt a rule which fully meets the applicable federal

law, and which

 is not inconsistent with any substantive

environmental standard or prohibition which

is

specifically and completely contained

 and fully set

forth within any Illinois statute, except

 as authorized

by this Act.

 In determining whether

 the rule fully

meets the applicable

 federal

 law,

 the Board shall

consider all relevant evidence

 in the record.

c.

 Within

 21 days of the date that the Board accepts for

hearing

 a proposal for

 a required rule,

 any person may

request the Board

 to determine that

 an economic impact

study

 should be prepared or that an economic

 impact

study should not be prepared.

 Such request shall

be

made to the Board

 in writing and

 shall

 detail the

reasons for the request.

 To aid th~Board

in

determining whether an economic impact

 study

 is needed,

the person filing

 a request

 that an economic study

be

prepared or requesting that an economic study

 not be

1fl9—44~)

-4-

prepared shall describe to the extent reasonably

 practicable the universe of affected sources and

facilities and the economic impact of the proposed

required rule.

Within 60 days of

 the date that the Board accepts for

hearing

 a proposal for a required rule,

 the Board shall

determine whether

 an economic

 impact study should

be

conducted.

 The Board shall

 reach its decision based on

its assessment

 of the potential economic

 impact

 of the

rule, the potential for consideration of the economic

impact absent such a study,

 the extent,

 if any, to which

the Board

 is free under the statute authorizing the rule

to modify the substance of the rule based upon the

conclusions

 of such

 a study,

 and any other

considerations the Board deems appropriate.

 The Board

may identify specific issues to be addressed in the

study.

d.

 If the Board determines that an economic impact study

is

necessary,

 the Department shall

 prepare

 an economic

impact study

 in accordance with

 “An Act

 in relation to

natural resources, research, data collection and

environmental

 studies:, approved July. 14,

 1978,

as

amended.

 The economic impact

 study shall

 be prepared

within 6 months of the date of the Board’s decision that

an economic impact study should

 be conducted.

 If the

economic impact study

 is not submitted to the Board

within that 6 month period, the Board may proceed

to

adopt

 a required rule without an economic

 impact

study.

 If the Board notifies the Department that

it

will proceed to adopt

 a required rule without

an

economic impact study, the Department need

 not complete

the economic impact

 study.

 To the extent possible

consistent with subsection

 (b), the Board

 shall

 conduct

a hearing on the economic impact of the proposed

required rule.

During the course of this proceeding, three fundamental

 issues have

arisen:

(1)

 Is the Agency certification reviewable?

(2)

 Is economic

reasonableness and technical

 feasibility considered

in

 a Section 28.2

rulemaking? and

 (3) What is the applicable

 federal

 law that the Board’s

rulemaking must fully meet?

(1) Agency Certification

On February 8,

 1990, the Board adopted

 an Order

 in response to a motion

filed

 by the “Industry Group”

 to dismiss or sever the proposed changes to

the

Generic and SOCMI

 Leaks rules.

 That Order addresses in detail

 the issue of

what an Agency certification

 is and concludes that a certification

is

 reviewable

 by the Board.

 Further, with regard

 to the specific issues raised

109—450

—5—

in that motion,

 the Board determined that the proposed amendments

 to the

Generic and SOCMI

 Leaks rules were not founded upon federal

 law such as

to

fall within the purview of Section 28.2.

 Subdocket

 (B) was created

to

consider those amendments under the regular rulemaking provisions of Sections

27 and 28 of the Act.

 That discussion will

 not be duplicated here.

 That

Order will stand

 as the Board’s decision on this issue.

 The Board notes,

however, that on March

15,

 1990 the Agency filed

 a motion

 to reconsider that

Order.

 The motion

 is not considered here as other participants have not as

yet received, let alone responded

to,

 the motion.

On January

10,

 1990, Stepan Company filed

 a motion

 to strike

 and motion

for application of Section

 28 rulemaking, arguing essentially that

the

Agency’s proposal

 fails

to

 identify the

 “law”

 to which the proposed amendments

will respond.

 On January

23,

 1990, the Agency filed

 a motion for extension of

time to respond

to

 the motion.

 The Board granted the Agency’s motion on

January 25,

 1990.

In

 its post-hearing comments, however, Stepan

 indicated that the Agency

would,

 in its comments, provide written confirmation of its “interpretation of

the statutory provision Section

 1O~and of the inapplicability

 of the Generic

Rule to Stepan

 by virtue

 thereof.”

 Stepan further stated that

 in light of

that understanding,

the

 issue

as

to

 the status of

 the Agency proposal

 as a

required rule under federal

 law as raised

 in its motion

 is moat.

On February

22,

 1990,

 the Board adopted

 an order noting this language and

noting that the Agency had

 in fact filed

 comments confirming Stepan’s

assertions.

The

 Board construed Stepan’s statement that the

 issue

 is moot as

a request

 to withdraw its motion and granted the motion.

As

 a result of the

substantive actions taken today, which are discussed below,

 the Board does not

believe

 it necessary to

 look further into the

 “required”

 nature of the

remainder of the proposed amendments, beyond that which

 is discussed

 under

number

3,

 below.

(2) Economic Reasonableness and Technical Feasibility

By far the most controversial

 issue raised

 in this proceeding

 is whether

or not economic reasonableness

 and technical feasibility are to

 be considered

in a Section 28.2 rulemaking.

 This issue was touched upon

 in the Board’s

Order of February 8,

 1990;

 however, as post-hearing comments were scheduled to

be

 filed on

 February 9,

 1990,

 the Board opted

 to await

 all comments before

addressing

 the issue.

 The Board today decides

 that economic reasonableness

and technical feasibility are necessary considerations

in

 a Section 28.2

rulemaking.

As discussed above,

 the Board decided on October

27,

 1989 that an EcIS

would not be conducted.

 Such decision was made pursuant

 to the second

paragraph of Section 28.2(c).

 The reasons for such decision are addressed in

the Order dated October 27,

 1989.

As

 an aside,

 the Board notes that another

consideration also presented

 itself.

 The Exhibit

C

 schedule of

 “milestone”

dates has been previously noted.

 The Board notes that that schedule does not

contemplate the preparation of

 an EcIS.

In

 fact,

the

 only. way for the

 Board

to meet the “milestone” dates

 is for an EcIS

 to not be prepared.

In

an

1O~)—45i

-6-

attempt to cooperate with and demonstrate good faith to the other parties

of

the Wisconsin lawsuit and

 in recognition of the fact that economic and

technical information have traditionally been introduced during the hearing

process, and fully expecting that such would

 be submitted during the hearings

in this proceeding, the Board chose to attempt to meet the Exhibit C schedule

over requiring the EcIS.

 Had the Board known what would transpire, perhaps

that decision would

 be different.

On the first day of hearing, December

7,

 1989,

 an Agency representative

stated:

The Agency

 is not offering testimony on the technical feasibility

of

compliance,

 the economical reasonableness of these proposed

regulations or the affected facilities.

 This regulatory package

contains corrections

 to deficiencies in the RACT rules identified by

USEPA.

 According to the Settlement

 Agreement,

 if the Board fails to

timely adopt

 the corrections

 in an approvable

 form, USEPA will

promulgate federal corrections.

 In either case,

 emission sources

will

 be required

 to come into compliance with rules implementing

these corrections.

 In addition, this

 information

 is not necessary

for the Board

 to adopt

 a rule that fully meets the applicable

federal

 law.

 (Emphasis added.)

(R.

 14—15.)

At

no

 time before that date was the Board ever given

an

 indication by the

Agency that

 it subscribed

 to this position.

 In fact, the Board notes that

in

another “required”

 rulemaking, R88- 21, Water Toxics,

 adopted January 25,

1990,

 an EcIS was prepared and economic reasonableness was considered.

 That

notwithstanding, however,

 the Agency chose to

let

 its proposal

 stand or fall

with this position on the scope

of

 a Section 28.2 rulemaking proceeding.

The

remainder of the December

 7 and 8 hearings was devoted to Agency testimony on

the

 federal

 justification of the proposed amendments and Agency statements

that

 it was not prepared

 to respond to questions involving economic

or

technical

 justification.

On December

13,

 1989,

 the Hearing Officer issued

 an Order directing the

Agency, and requesting USEPA,

to

 be prepared to respond to certain questions

at the December

14,

 1989 hearing.

The specific questions are as follows:

1.

 Describe, to the extent reasonably practicable,

 the types of Illinois

 sources and facilities that are within “the universe

 of affected sources

and facilities”

 subject

 to the proposed required

rules.

2.

 Describe, to the extent reasonably practicable, by type,

approximately how many such sources and facilities would be affected

by

the proposed required rules.

3.

 Describe, to the extent reasonably practicable,

 the anticipated

economic effects

 of the proposed

 required rules on sources and

facilities.

 Will

 the effect and timing of

 these rules result

 in more

stringent standards

in

 Illinois than elsewhere?

109—452

—7—

4.

 Has either the IEPA or USEPA determined,

 formally or informally,

whether the proposed required rules

 are technically feasible?

Economically reasonable?

5.

 If either answer

to

#4

 is “yes”, what was the nature of

the

determination, and when and how was

 it made?

6.

Is

 it the position of either the IEPA or the USEPA that the substance

of the proposed required rules cannot be altered or modified

 in any

significant substantive way (excluding typographical errors

 and other

non—substantive matters)

 if USEPA is

 to grant its approval?

 If so, what

is the authority for this position?

 Has this authority been asserted

in

writing?

7.

 If the answer to #6

 is “no”, what procedure(s)

 and what USEPA

official(s) determine whether

 a modification is approvable?

At hearing

 on December

14,

 1989,

 the Agency offered certain responses to these

questions on a deficiency

 by deficiency basis.

 The substance of

 such

responses is addressed below under the specific deficiencies.

 These responses

constitute the extent of the information submitted by the Agency regarding

economic reasonableness and technical feasibility.

At hearing on December

14,

 1989, the Board received testimony from Mr.

Sidney Marder, Executive Director of the Illinois Environmental

 Regulatory

Group

 (IERG), on the issue of considering economic reasonableness and

technical feasibility

 in a Section 28.2 proceeding.

 Mr. Marder noted

 that he

participated in the drafting of Section 28.2, along with many others.

Mr.

Marder stated his view that:

There

is

 no way that

 the business community would have agreed to

 a change

in the Environmental Protection Act that would have incorporated

a

provision that would have allowed the Agency

 to categorically say that a

federally mandated rule does not require the inclusion or the

consideration of economic

 impact or technical feasibility.

(R.

 261.)

Mr. Marder further noted his

 view that Industry representatives traded off

the

need for an EcIS

as

 a formal document

 in certain

 cases, but specifically

retained the right

 to economic and

 technical data pursuant to Section

 27 of

the Act.

(R.

 262.)

At hearing on December

15,

 1989,

 the Board

 received testimony from Mr.

James Harrington, appearing on behalf of

 the Illinois Steel

 Group and the

Illinois Manufacturers Association.

 Mr. Harrington

 testified on the history

of Section 28.2 of the Act.

 After providing background

 information,

Mr.

Harrington stated

During this time,

 it was never suggested by

 the Governor’s Office,

Ms. Witter,

 or Mr. Haschemeyer for the Agency,

 or from anyone else

that

 the requirement for economic reasonableness, technical

feasibility considerations would

 be deleted from rulemaking pursuant

100_

4 ~

3

-8-

to Section 28.2.

 Indeed,

 in phone conversations,

I

 believe industry

was assured that these requirements would continue

 in effect.

And

that, therefore,

 industry would

 be protected from the adoption of

 rules without the consideration of economic reasonableness, or

technical feasibility.

 (R. 496-497.)

On January

18,

 1990,

 the Illinois Steel Group filed

 a Memorandum of Law

Regarding Adoption of

 RACT Rules, which provided argument in support of Mr.

Harringtons position.

In post-hearing comments, most

 if not all

 of the industry participants

stated that a Section 28.2 rulemaking proceeding must include

 a consideration

of economic reasonableness

 and technical feasibility.

In post—hearing comments, the Agency submitted

 a brief regarding

its

interpretation of Section 28.2 of the Act and an affidavit of Mr. Delbert

Haschemeyer.

 The Agency offers the affidavit of

 Mr. Haschemeyer, Deputy

Director of the Agency,

 in response to

 the positions stated by Mr. Marder and

Mr. Harrington,

 noted above.

 In his affidavit,

 Mr. Haschemeyer states that

the basic agreement between the participants which formed the foundation for

Section 28.2(c)

and

(d)

 included:

That the economic impact

 study (EcIS)

 process with the involvement of

Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) was cumbersome, time

consuming and frequently non-productive.

 That a new process was needed

which offered greater flexibility for the development and consideration

of economic information to the extent

 such information was relevant and

 necessary to the Board’s consideration.

That the role of economic

 information

in

 a required rule and the Board’s

ability to consider economic information would vary depending on the

nature of the Federal

 requirements and the nature

 of the proposed

rule....

The question presented is whether economic information

 is relevant to the

Board’s consideration of the substance of

 the rule.

 That

 is, would

consideration of economic information change the substance of the rule.

If not, then the Board could proceed without

 such consideration.

(Affidavit

pp.

 2—3)

Finally, Mr. Haschemeyer

 states that the Board’s need to consider economic

information

 in required

 rulemakings

 is contained entirely and exclusively

in

Section 28.2 and

 that depending on the nature of the Federal requirement and

the nature of

 the proposed

 rule,

 that need can vary from none at

all

 to the

need for a full blown EcIS and consideration thereof.

The Agency’s brief argues basically as follows.

 The first issue

is

whether the rules proposed are

 indeed needed

 to meet the requirements of

federal

 law.

It

 is the Agency’s position that the rules proposed herein are

needed

 in order for Illinois to meet the requirements of

 Sections 110(a)

and

 172(b) of the Clean Air Act

 (CAA).

 Thus,

 it argues that the applicability

requirements of Section 28.2 have been met.

The

 second issue

 is whether the

109—454

-9-

rules proposed fully meet the applicable

 federal

 law under Section 28.2 and

whether they,

 or some other rules which fully meet the applicable federal

 law,

should be adopted by the Board.

 The Agency notes that

if

 a rule

is

 needed to

meet the requirements of

 the federal

 CAA, the Board

 is mandated

 by Section

28.2 to adopt

 a rule which fully meets

 the applicable federal

 law.

 The Agency

continues:

Several arguments have been offered asserting that the Board must

consider the economic

 reasonableness, economic impact

 and technical

feasibility of proposed regulations

 in a proceeding pursuant

 to Section

28.2 of the Act.

 Under the plain

 language of the section, this depends

upon whether there

 is more that one alternative which “fully meets the

applicable federal

 law”, since the Board must adopt

 a rule which does

so.

 If there

 is only one alternative that the Board can determine will

satisfy the standard for a required rule, the Board must adopt that

 proposal.

 Obviously consideration of other

 factors would be unnecessary

and irrelevant

 in such

 a situation.

*

*

*

A review of the record establishes that the Agency has provided a

substantial body of

 relevant evidence

 to the Board to support its

assertion that adoption of its proposed rules will

 fully meet the

applicable federal

 law, including the CAA.

 Such evidence includes

written documentation and sworn testimony by USEPA representatives.

The

USEPA testimony was that the Agency proposals,

 if adopted by the Board,

will meet the requirements of applicable

 federal

 law....

 Nothing

comparable has been provided for any alternatives

 to this Agency’s

proposal.

 In the absence

 of specific competing proposals,

 with

supporting evidence

 in the record

 showing alternatives which meet the

applicable federal

 law, the Board has no choice but to comply with

its

statutory mandate and adopt

 the Agency’s proposals.

 (Agency Brief pp.

4-

5.)

Finally, the Agency believes that resort

to

 the legislative history behind the

enactment of Section 28.2

 is unnecessary because the statute

 is clear and

unambiguous on

 its face.

With this final

 comment the Board concurs.

 The Board does not believe

it

necessary to

 look beyond

 the language of Section 28.2 of

 the Act to determine

whether economic reasonableness

 and technical feasibility are to

 be considered

in

 a Section 28.2 rulemaking.

Section 28.2 specifically contemplates the potential for preparation of

an EcIS.

 The fundamental

 distinction between the rulemaking procedures of

Section 28.2 and

 the regular rulemaking procedures

 is that

 if an EcIS is

requested

in

a

 Section 28.2 rulemaking the Board can proceed after 6 months of

the date the EcIS was requested whether or not the EcIS

 is submitted.

 Nowhere

in Section 28.2 does

it

 say that economic reasonableness and technical

feasibility, which

 are required

by

 Section

27,

 are not

to

 be considered

in

a

required rule proceeding.

It

is

 a basic rule of

 statutory construction that,

if

reasonably

possible

to

do

so

without

violence

to

the

spirit

and

language

of

10~—45S

-10-

the statute, the provision being construed should

be

 interpreted so as

 to give

the statute efficient operation and effect

as

 a whole.

 See, e.g. Pliakos v.

Illinois Liquor Control Commission,

 143 N.E.2d 47,

11

 Ill.

2d

 456 (1957).

In

order to give all provisions of Title VII

 of the Act there

 intended effect,

the Board

 believes that

 it is required to consider economic reasonableness and

technical feasibility

 in any rulemaking unless the statutory authority for

that rulemaking explicitly exempts those

 issues from consideration, such as

in

Section 17.5 of the Act, or unless the statutory language clearly indicates

that those

 issues need

 not be considered,

 such

as

 in Section 7.2 of the Act.

Section 27* has been construed by the courts

as

a

broad requirement that the Board “take

 into account”

certain factors

 in promulgating

 its pollution control

regulations reflects

 a legislative recognition of

the

complexities of pollution control technology and of the

differing levels of sophistication of control methods

associated with various types

 of pollution.

The

requirement of Section

27

is

 a flexible one and of

necessity requires that a great deal of discretion

be

exercised by the Board.

 Shell

Oil

Co.

v.

 IPCB,

37

 Ill.

App.

 3d 264 346 N.E.2d 212 221

 (1976).

In the context of cases

 affirming the Board’s adoption of a prior

 set of

RACT rules adopted by the Board, the appellate courts have stated that the

Section does not mandate any particular standards with which the Board must

comply,

 and does not establish that the Board must support its regulatory

conclusions with any given, specified quantum of evidence.

 Illinois State

Chamber of Commerce v.

 IPCB,

 177 Ill. App.

 3d 923,

 532 N.E.2d 987

 (1988);

Stepan Co.

v.

 IPCB,

 N.E.2d

,

 Ill. App.3d

 (no. 3-88—004, Third

Dist., February

8,

 1990),

 (slip op.as 8), Section

 27 does,

 however, require

the Board to

 “take

 into account” economic reasonableness when making

its

decisions.

 There

 is no conflict between the mandates

 of Section 27

 and 28.2,

although Section 28.2 may

 limit Section 27’s broadest

 scope.

Thus, economic reasonableness

 and technical feasibility

will

be

taken

into account

 in a Section 28.2 proceeding,

 as any other consideration required

by Section 27

 of the Act.

 However, the weight that will

 be given to

 those

*Section 27(a)

 of the Act states

 in relevant part:

In promulgating regulations under this Act, the

Board

 shall

 take into account the existing physical

conditions,

 the character of

 surrounding land uses,

zoning classifications,

 the nature

 of the existing

air quality,

 or receiving body of water,

 as the

case may be,

 and the technical feasibility and

economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing

the particular

 type of pollution.

109—456

-11-

considerations can depend upon certain variables,

 which include but are

not

limited to,

 the nature of the subject matter, the specifity of the federal

requirements, and any federal deadline.

This proceeding,

 entitled “Reasonably Available Control Technology

Deficiencies”,

is

 a somewhat unusual

 proceeding.

It

is

 a proceeding

 in which

economic reasonableness considerations

 are inherent

 in the subject matter.

Further,

it

is

 a proceeding

 involving the same issues

as

 the Board has

considered

 in previous rulemakings.

 During the

 past several years, the Board

has conducted many rulemakings resulting

 in the adoption of Illinois’

 existing

RACT rules.

 The Board determined, based on records that included Economic

Impact Studies, that the existing regulations constitute RACT in

 Illinois.

Thus, the

 Board

is

 being asked

 to reevaluate those prior determinations, which

themselves

 involved considerations of economic reasonableness and technical

feasibility.

 The Board

is

 not persuaded to now completely ignore

 those

considerations

 in correcting the deficiencies in those

 rules.

The Agency’s arguments concerning economic reasonableness

 and technical

feasibility will,

 therefore,

 be directed to

 the “weight” that those

considerations should receive.

 To support

 its view that economic information

is not necessary for the Board

 to adopt the proposed rules, the Agency relies

upon the language in Section 28.2(c), which states:

.the extent,

 if any, to which the Board

 is free under the statute

authorizing the rule to modify the substance of the rule based

upon

 the conclusions

of

 such a study,...

The Board

 notes that this language

 is relevant

 to the Board’s decision

as

to

whether an EcIS

 shall

 be prepared,

 and only to that

 issue.

 This language

is

not relevant to,

 and does

 not affect,

 the Board’s underlying authority to

 consider economic reasonableness and technical feasibility

 in promulgating

regulations under Section 28.2.

 Further,

 the Board

 notes that identical

language

 is also found

 in Section 27(a), paragraph

 1 of

 the Act,

 and has

not

been interpreted to limit the scope

 of the Board’s obligations

 in rulemaking.

Further, the Agency apparently believes that because USEPA has stated

that the proposal,

 if adopted, would

 be approved

 and because

 no other

participa~thas offered

an

 alternative to which USEPA has made the same

statement

,

 its proposal

is

 the only alternative and must therefore be

adopted.

 The Agency appears

 to equate the number of proposals with the number

of potential alternatives.

 The Board cannot and does

 not accept this

argument.

 First, the Board

 notes

 that the Agency itself

 has proposed

 a number

of alternatives to

 its original proposal

 as the record developed and

as

it

better understood the ramifications of

 its proposal.

 Second,

it

 is the

*The Board

 notes the Agency’s reliance upon USEPA!s letter

 to support its

proposal but

is

 troubled

 by the Agency’s reliance on the letter

 to argue

against any alternatives.

 The Board questions

how

 a USEPA

 letter addressing

alternatives would be forthcoming.

 In other words,

 what

is

 the likelihood

of

any participant

 other than the Agency obtaining such

a

 letter

in

 a timely

manner?

109-

4 57

—12—

province of the Board to determine whether alternatives exist based upon the

information

 in a given record.

 The Board’s determination cannot be limited

in

this respect solely by the number of proposals filed

 in a rulemaking

proceeding.

 Again,

 under Section 28.2 of the Act, the Board

 is to determine

whether the proposed rule fully meets the applicable federal

 law.

 To yield to

the procedure suggested by the Agency would

be

 a clear abdication

 of the

Board’s mandate under the Act.

The Board

 is not persuaded that the Agency’s proposal

 is the only

alternative which would be approvable.

 USEPA has

 stated that the Agency’s

proposal

 is approvable.

 However, this does not mean that ipso facto other

alternatives would

 not also be approvable.

 In fact,

 a representative of

USEPA,

 in response to a question regarding whether the substance of the

 proposal could be altered, testified at hearing

 as follows:

I think our position would

 be that there

is

 a set of words and

substance that we have evaluated and indicated to the Board

is

acceptable.

 I mean, you can rewrite that

 a zillion different ways,

depending on how you choose

 to rewrite

it.

It

 is possible that the

substance has been changed inadvertently, or whatever.

 I think

 that

our position would

be

 if somebody wants

 to take that risk they are

certainly free to do

so.

 If on the other hand they choose not

to

take that risk,

 they have before them a set of words and substance

that we have determined to be acceptable.

So

 I would

 say that,

 yes,

it can be changed but somebody runs a risk when they change

it.

(R.

311.)

USEPA itself recognizes that there could

 be other approvable alternatives.

Herein

 lies the problem.

 The Board

 is not persuaded by

 the record that

other alternatives do not exist.

 USEPA recognizes that other alternatives may

in fact exist.

 The Agency

 itself argues that

 if alternatives do exist,

the

Board must consider economic reasonableness and technical feasibilit~. But

the Agency decided

 early on that its proposal, and only

 its proposal

,

 would

fully meet the applicable federal

 law: therefore,

 the Agency concluded that

its proposal was the only alternative;

 therefore,

 the Agency determined

 not to

offer evidence of economic impact, economic reasonableness, or technical

feasibility.

 Without information

 in the record on economic impact and

technical feasibility, the Board

 is precluded from considering,

 in any

meaningful

 way, alternatives to the Agency proposal.

 It would

 appear,

therefore,

 that

 the Board and the Agency are

 at an

 impasse.

The Board therefore adopts

 a construction of

 the Act which comports with

the plain direction of the legislature

 to decide that proposed rules fully

meet the applicable Federal

 law. Consistent with its above—described

construction of Section 28.2 of the Act,

 the Board will proceed to second

notice with the proposed amendments to the extent that the Board can take into

*Query how the Agency could know,

 on December

7,

 1989,

 that no other

participant would obtain

 a similar letter from USEPA

 by the close of the

record on February 9,

 1990.

1*’)9#-458

-13—

account, based

 upon the record,

 those considerations required under Section

 27(a)

 of the Act and to the

 extent that the Board can determine that the

proposed amendments fully meet the applicable federal

 law.

(3) Applicable Federal

Law

Section 28.2(b) of the Act states that “whenever

 a required rule is

needed, the Board shall

 adopt a rule which fully meets the applicable federal

law,...”

 The third

 significant issue

 in this proceeding

 is: what will fully

meet the applicable federal

 law?

 Note that this issue

 is closely related

to,

but

 is distinguishable from,

 the issue of what forms the basis for an Agency

certification of

 a proposal

 as “required.”

In

 its Certification

 the Agency stated that several sections of the CAA

support the “general” basis for this regulatory package.

The Agency stated:

Section 110 of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit

to

USEPA

 a plan which provides

 for the implementation, maintenance

and

enforcement of national ambient air quality standards

 (NAAQS) for

criteria pollutants.

 Ozone

is

 a criteria pollutant with

 a primary

NAAQS adopted

 by USEPA on February

8,

 1979.

 Section

I1O(a)(2)(h)(ii) gives the Administrator of USEPA the authority to

require revisions

 to the State Implementation Plan

 (SIP) whenever

it

is determined

to

 be substantially inadequate to achieve the national

ambient air quality primary or secondary standard.

 The proposed

regulations are to

 be part of the Illinois SIP for ozone.

The

proposed revisions address regulations that have been identified

as

deficient by USEPA.

(Agency Certification,

p.

2).

Further, the Agency states:

Additional

 federal justification establishing this regulatory

package

as

 a “required rule”

 differs widely for each deficiency.

A

description of

 the additional

 federal

 justification for each

deficiency

 is provided

 in attached Table

1.

(Agency Certification,

p.

3).

The Agency

 submitted

a

 list of

 the justification documents as part of

its

proposal.

 Included

 in this list of “justification” documents are:

 the SIP

call

 letter; USEPA’s proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide plan,

published November 24,

 1987;

 the clarification of Appendix

0

 of the November

24,

 1987 publication (Blue

 Book), and various other correspondence and

memoranda.

While the Board

 has generally accepted the required nature

 of t~is

proceeding

as

 being based upon certain sections of

 the Clean Air Act

and

the

SIP Call

 Letter, the

 Board notes

 that

it

is

 troubled by

 the Agency’s reliance

upon some of these other documents to support the substantive aspects

of

the

proposed amendments.

 The Board has serious questions about how much weight to

100—4

50

-14-

give to these “justification” documents.

 For example, the November 24, 1987

Federal

 Register—-entitled “State Implementation Plans; Approval of Post-1987

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas

 Not Attaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards; Notice”--is simply that,

 a Notice of Proposed

Policy.

 Nowhere

 in the record

 is there any indication that this document was

approved, or finalized,

 after the consideration of public comment.

 In other

words, this

 is merely

 a proposal that has not been adopted.

 Moreover, the

Blue Book, which has been cited widely

 in this proceeding,

is

a

“clarification”

 of the appendix to the November 24,

 1987,

 “proposed policy.”

If the Federal Register notice

is

 “one step removed” from being

 a federal

requirement,

 is the Blue Book two steps removed?

 The Board

 realizes that this

question seems awkward,

 but the record gives

 little

 insight into

 the relative

merit of each document.

The Illinois Steel

 Group’s (ISG)

 Memorandum of

Law

Regarding

Adoption

of

the PACT Rules

 (P.C. #9), filed January

18,

 1990,

 addresses the Board’s

concerns

to

 a certain extent.

The

 ISG argues,

 in part,

 that:

tihe

 IEPA has confused federal

 “law” with federal” guidelines”,

when the two

 are not the same.

 Federal

 “law” clearly encompasses

statutory provisions,

 as well

 as administrative provisions enacted

through legal

 procedure.

 Federal agency findings lack the force

of

law when they are arrived

 at through procedures other that those

required by

 law.

 (ISG Memo,

at

 10).

The Board agrees.

 Therefore,

 in reviewing the proposed amendments which

the Board will proceed with after considering economic reasonableness and

technical feasibility,

 the Board will

 look to ensure

 satisfaction of the

requirements of federal

 law, not federal guidance.

 The Board will address

this more specifically, where appropriate,

 under the individual

 deficiencies.

Finally, the Board notes that after the December 15,

 1990 hearing, USEPA

sent to the Board

 (P.C.

8)

 some materials which included a draft report of

“Technical

 Support Documentation For Federal RACT Rules For Illinois”.

 This

document contains information which purports

 to address technical

 support,

environmental impacts and costs

 of control for USEPA’s proposed amendments

to

Illinois’

 SIP.

 The Board notes that under some of the Deficiencies involved

in this proceeding, this federal document suggests extremely high cost per ton

of VOM reduced.

 However, the Board cannot place great

 reliance upon this

information.

 The Board notes that this information

is

 part of a “Draft

Report” subject to public comment

 in the

 federal rulemaking

 and that the Board

had no one to question

 as to the contents of the draft document.

 In other

words,

 this document

 is equivalent to unsworn testimony.

 As such, the Board

will give little weight

to

 its contents.

*The Board notes that,

 on February 15,

 1990,

 it completed the rulemaking

of R88—3O,

 Limits

 to the Volatility of Gasoline, which has the potential to

result

 in the reduction of 200 tons per day of ozone precursor emissions

during the months

 of July and August

 in the Chicago metropolitan area alone.

Compliance with this new regulation should do much to assist the state in

 demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS for ozone.

109—4 60

—15—

THE DEFICIENCIES

Some general remarks concerning the Board’s economic analysis

 in this

proceeding

are

 in order,

 prior to discussing particular deficiencies.

 As has

been previously discussed, the Board must consider the broad duty and

authority dictated by Section 27(a)

 to “take

 into account” various factors

in

light

of

 “the specifications of particular classes

 of regulations elsewhere

in

the

 Act”.

 Again,

 as earlier discussed,

 the specifications of Section

28.2(b) are that the Board

 “adopt

 a rule which fully meets the applicable

law”,

 “which

is

 not inconsistent with any substantive environmental standard”,

and that

 the Board “consider all

 relevant evidence

 in the record.”

It

is

clear from the prior case

 law interpreting Section

 27 that

 the Board need not

“produce direct evidence

 that the control

 technologies necessary to

meet. ..standards are technically feasible and economically reasonable for

a

substantial

 number

 of the sources throughout the state,

as

 this

 would

necessarily

 limit

 the Board’s regulations

 to a contemplation of

 existing

technology only.”

 Shell

 Oil, supra,

 346 N.E.2d 221.

 What level

of

consideration lesser than this

is

 sufficient to

 avoid

 the invalidation of

rules

 as “clearly arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious”

 (Illinois Coal

Operator’s Association v.

 Pollution Control

 Board,

59

 Ill.

 2d 305, 310,

319N.E.2d 782, 785,

by

 a reviewing court has not been clearly articulated

in

the case law.

The Board must then,

 on a case—by—case basis, determine what level

of

consideration of what quantity of information is necessary to reasonably

support adoption of a rule.

As

 the Board has noted throughout this Opinion,

 the record supporting

many of the proposed rules

is

 thin, and much of

 the economic information which

is

 in this record can be afforded little weight.

 Because of the mandate of

Section 28.2

 (which the

 Board also construes as

 including

 a directive to act

consistent with the milestone dates of the Wisconsin settlement),

 the Board

has no time,

 in this docket,

to

 itself strengthen this record or to direct and

allow the participants to do

so.

 The Board must “take the record

as

 it finds

it.”

*

Giving the words

 “take into account” their ordinary meaning,

 in some

deficiency areas the Board

 is simply unable

 to fulfill

 its statutory directive

based on

 this record.

 While the Board

 is highly

 aware that rulemaking

decisions must be made on

 less than perfect information

 in order

 to timely

comply with federal deadlines,

 the Board will not presently proceed

 to adopt

rules whose reasonableness,

 for the State

of

 Illinois, cannot

 be determined

by

this technically qualified Board even

in

 light

of

the

 long history

of

 these

proceedings.

 Where the

 Board cannot,

in

 all good conscience,

 presently

proceed

 to make the required findings, the Board will defer further

consideration to a Docket

B,

 which was opened on February 22,

 1990.

*The Shell

 Oil court,

 quoting from J.E. Rodale,

 The Synonym Finder,

described

 the phrase

in

 its general

 sense

 as meaning “allow for, make

allowances for, weigh carefully, consider,

 take into consideration, bear

in

mind, remember, realize,

 appreciate, have in one’s mind.”

 346 N.E.2d

 at 219.

100—!,6 1

-16-

The Board wishes

 to emphasize that its approach

 in this particular

proceeding should not be taken as representative of the approach to be taken

in all future Section 28.2 rulemakings;

 each must be handled based on the

specifics of the mandate to implement the federal program involved.

Finally, the

 Board notes that because

 of the limited time available to

review the extensive record and to prepare this opinion,

 the Board

 is only

addressing those

 issues which are dispositive of a given proposed amendment.

In other words,

 where the Board determines not to proceed with an amendment

based

 upon •insufficient

 information

 in the record for the Board to take into

account the economical

 reasonableness, the Board’s analysis stops

 at that

point.

 That

is

 not to imply that the proposed amendment stands or falls on

economic reasonableness alone.

It

 is simply the attempt

 to expedite this

proceeding

 to meet the schedule

 in the Settlement Agreement that the Board

does not go on to address the other Section 27(a)

 considerations.

DEFICIENCY

1

—

 Surface Coating Exemption

To correct this deficiency,

 the Agency proposed amendments to Sections

201.146(g),

 215.206,

 and 215.211.

Revised Section 201.146(g) would eliminate the exemption from permit

requirements for painting lines using 5,000 gallons per year or

 less at

facilities

 in the state that will

 be subject

 to the coating requirements

in

Part 215, Subparts

F

an

PP.

Revised Sections 215.206(a)

and

 (b) pertain to the counties of Cook,

DuPage, Kane,

 Lake, McHenry,

 Will,

 Macoupin, Madison, Monroe and St. Clair for

coating categories other than wood furniture coating.

 Subsection

 (a) would

reduce the exemption for the different RACT categories

 of coating lines from

25 T/yr for the coating plant

to

 15 lb/day for each RACT grouping

 of coating

lines.

 Subsection

(b)

 would state that any coating

 line that has ever been

subject to the limitations of

 Section 215.205 cannot use reductions

in

emissions to qualify for the exemption under Section 215.206(a).

Section 215.206(a)(3) would delete an exemption for National Can

Corporation as

it

is

 no longer operating

 in Loves Park,

 Illinois.

Section 215.206(d) would continue the current

 25 T/yr exemption

 level

for

wood furniture coating facilities

 in the state.

 The requirement that

emissions be limited

by

 an operating permit

 is deleted.

 The exemption

is

 also

altered

 by the addition of

 a provision that a wood furniture coating plant

will continue

 to remain

 subject to Subpart

F

 in certain counties once it

becomes subject

 to this Subpart.

New Section 215.211(d)

 is added to

 allow newly subject facilities one

year from the

 date of adoption to achieve compliance with the regulations.

At hearing on December

14,

 1989,

 in response to the Hearing Officer Order

questions noted above,

 the Agency offered the following responses.

The

10~—462

-17-

proposed changes conceivably would go to plants that are involved

in

automobile or light duty truck coating, can coating,

 coil coating, fabric

coating,

 vinyl coating, metal

 furniture coating,

 large appliance coating,

magnet wire coating, miscellaneous metal

 parts and products coating,

 and heavy

off highway vehicle products as those operations

 are defined

 in the Board’s

rules.

In response to question

 2 relating to which

 sources would be affected,

the Agency stated:

This is

 a very hard question to answer,

 because we

 are trying

to

predict the effect for facilities that we really don’t have very

 good records on.

 Obviously, we have concentrated our efforts on the

larger facilities.

 That

 is where we have detailed permit

application

 information... .Roughly,

I

 have to say, that

 if we

are

going from 25 tons per year to an applicability that

 is on

 the order

of one ton per year, you could not

sic

 double the number

of

affected facilities.

 It might

 be triple.

 It might

 be fifty percent

increase.

 (R. 168-169.)

In response

 to the question regarding anticipated

 economic effects, the

Agency stated:

All

I

 can say

 is sort of

 a broad statement that the effects could

be

variable.

 There are

 some facilities who

 I would expect already

comply with the rule or would have to have minimum changes

in

operations... .There are others that would have to make minor

changes, switch coatings, maybe some coincidental equipment changes

that they might want to make anyway, or some other changes

in

operations...There are also others where there could

 be significant

changes.

 I mean,

 they might have to undertake expenditures

 to alter

their process equipment or to install

 control equipment.

 Process

equipment changes would

 be necessary

 in some cases

 to allow

compliant coatings to be used.

(R.

 170.)

Based upon the record, the Board believes that this amendment will have

an effect.

 In light of the generality of this information and the lack of

economic information

 in the record, the Board

 is not persuaded that this

amendment is RACT for

 Illinois.

 The Board,

 therefore, will

 not proceed with

any of these proposed amendments,

 except for one.

 The Board believes that the

exemption for National

 Can Corporation’s Loves

 Park facility can be deleted as

it

is

no

 longer

 in operation.

 ‘The Board has, therefore, retained this

deletion.

DEFICIENCY 4(a)

-

 Fabric Coating Definition

The revised definition of

 “fabric coating” clarifies that coating

operations

 include saturation of

 the substrate.

At hearing on December 14,

 1989,

 in response

 to Hearing Officer Order,

the Agency’s

 response to the questions noted above

 includes the following:

109—463

-18-

I don’t know of any sources that would

 be affected

 by the proposed

rules.

 I also doubt the proposed rule would

 lead to a significant

change...

Well,

 based on my previous answer

 I would expect there to be no

economic

 effect

 on facilities.

 Of course, there might

be.

somebody out there that could be significantly affected

 if they had

to install

 control equipment.

(R.

 172-173.)

Based upon this testimony, the Board will proceed with the proposed

amendment,

 as written.

 Taking into account the Section 27(a)

 considerations,

the Board believes that proceeding with the proposed amendment

 is appropriate.

DEFICIENCY 4(b)

—

 Paper Coating Definition

The revised definition

of

 “paper coating” would

 specify that coating

operations

 include saturation of the substrate.

At hearing on December 14,

 1989,

 in response to the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency states:

At this point,

I

 am only aware of one facility that would

be

affected by the proposed rule, and that’s Riverside Laboratories.

That’s the only operation where

I

 know that the change

 in the

language by

 including the term saturation

as

 a means of how paper

coating can be applied would bring that facility

 into the scope of

the Board’s paper coating rules...

.the effect on Riverside can certainly be significant

if

 it had to

install

 control

 equipment.

 (P. 174—175.)

The Board

 notes that Riverside

 has been an

 active participant

 in this

proceeding—-Riverside participated

 at hearing and submitted post—hearing

comments,

 i.e.,

 Public Comment #20.

 Generally,

 Riverside objects to the

Agency’s proposed modification because

 it argues that there

is

no

 basis for

including saturation operations

 in the definition of paper coating.

 Riverside

argues that

 the Agency has failed

to

 support the modification by appropriate

technical or economic data and

 has chosen

to

 ignore the technical feasibility

and economic reasonableness requirements

 of the Act.

 In addition, Riverside

argues that

 its process

 is unique

and

 is not comparable to paper coating

as

envisioned

 by the Agency

 or the Board.

 Riverside suggests that the Board

should follow

 its previous rulings

and

 the rulings

of

 the State and Federal

Courts and reject the modification proposed

 by the Agency.

Based upon the record, the Board believes that this amendment will have

an effect.

 However, because the information

 in the record

 indicates that at

least Riverside will

be

 affected by this change,

 and because the only

information in the record

 relating to economic reasonableness

 and technical

feasibility of the Age~cy’sproposal was submitted by Riverside

 in opposition

to the Agency proposal

,

 the Board

 is not persuaded that these rules are PACT

for Illinois.

 The Board notes

 as an aside that

it

 is aware of

 its prior

rulings

 in this area and that

 its prior rulings need not preclude,

 in and of

109—464

-19-

themselves,

 a rulemaking whereby Riverside’s operations

 are brought within the

purview of the paper coating rules.

 In other words, the Board held that

Riverside does not fall within the existing definition of paper coating, based

upon the history of

 that term’s adoption.

 PCB 87—62,

 January 5,

 1989.

 That

does not mean that Riverside’s operations are forever precluded from being

brought within that definition.

If

 a rulemaking record

 supports including

Riverside’s operations

 in the definition

 of paper coating, then the Board can

so promulgate.

However,

 in this proceeding, the record does not support proceeding with

the Agency’s proposed amendments.

DEFICIENCY 4(c)

—

 Transfer Efficiency

The revised definition of

 “transfer efficiency” changes the transfer

 efficiency calculation from a total

 coating volume basis

to

 a coating solids

basis.

At hearing

 on December

14,

 1989,

 in response

 to the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency stated:

.only two categories of coatings are in that universe.

 The first

is automobile coating which specifically includes transfer

efficiency

 in certain footnotes for adjusted standards.

 There

is

only one automobile manufacturing plant

 in nonattainment areas and

that is Ford Motor Company on Torrence Avenue.

 The other category

is wood furniture coating, which again requires

 a minimum transfer

efficiency of 65 percent for application

 of surface--whatever, wood

furniture surface coating.

I don’t

 believe any of the facilities would

 be affected

 by the

proposed

 rule.

Based upon my previous analysis,

 I don’t think

 it will

 have any

economic

 effect.

 (P. 177-178.)

Based upon this testimony,

 the Board will proceed with the proposed

amendments,

 as written.

 Taking into account the Section 27(a)

 considerations,

the Board believes that proceeding with the proposed amendment

 is appropriate.

DEFICIENCY

 4(d)

—

 Coating Definition

Revised Section 211.122 specifies

 a new definition

 for “coating” that

includes materials applied

to

 a substrate for decorative,

 protective

 or other

functional

 purposes.

 This section also changes the statewide definition of

“can coating”, “coating”,

 “coil coating”,

 “large appliance coating”,

 “prime

coat”,

 “prime surface coat”, and

“

 topcoat”

 so they are consistent with the

*The Board notes

 that the information and argument

 in the Agency’s post-

hearing comments

 is generally directed towards Riverside’s alternate proposal

and

 the information offered

 by Riverside at hearing.

I 00—465

-20-

definition of coating and to clarify that coating operations include

saturation

 of the substrate.

 Finally, revised Section 215.104 changes the

definition of “furniture coating application”

 so that it

 is consistent with

the definition of coating

 in Section 211.122.

At

 hearing on December

14,

 1989,

 in response to the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency stated:

This change conceivably could apply to all

 the coating categories

in

the Board’s rules.

As

 a practical matter, the type of situation

where this change has

 become important is for applications where

a

coating

 is applied for something other than appearance purposes,

that

 is decoration or corrosion resistance,

 what

 is otherwise known

as a functional

 coating.

 My belief

 is that functional coatings

appear

 to most commonly arise

 in the paper coating category and

miscellaneous metal

 parts.

If there

 is somebody out there who

 is affected

 I would have to

classify the effect

 as variable.

 Returning to the discussion for

general coating applicability, there might

 be minimal costs,

 there

might

be

 some minor costs

 if some changes have to

 be made.

 But they

are not particularly difficult.

 Or there could

 be significant cost

or efforts required.

(R.

 179-181.)

On February 9, 1990,

 Comment

 #19 was filed by Modine Manufacturing

(Modine).

 Modine states

 that under the current Board rules

it

 is not subject

to the Board’s coating regulation.

 Modine states that

 it does not believe

that this new definition

 of coating which expands the coverage of

 the term

from that understood

 in the USEPA’s Control Technology Guideline (CTG), will

impose additional compliance costs on Modine.

Based upon the record, the Board

 believes that this amendment will have

 an effect.

 In light of the generality of this information and the lack of

economic

 information in the record, the Board

 is not persuaded that this

amendment

 is RACT for Illinois.

As

 a result, the Board will

 not proceed with

this proposed amendments.

DEFICIENCY 4(e)

—

 Vinyl

 Coating

Revised Section 211.122 changes the definition of

 “vinyl coating”

to

exclude organisols and plastisols.

At

 hearing on December

 14, 1989,

 in response to

 the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency stated:

I

 am not aware of anyone that would actually be affected by the

proposed rule.

 I am not aware of any circumstance where organisols

or plastisols have been applied and given credit

 toward compliance

for

 a vinyl

 coating plant.

(R.

 182—183.)

Based upon this testimony, taking into account the Section 27(a)

considerations,

 the Board will proceed with the proposed amendments,

as

1O9~466

—21-

written.

 As the record indicates that

 it will or should have no economic

effect upon the people

 of the State of

 Illinois, the Board believes that

proceeding with the proposed amendment

 is consistent with the statutory

requirements.

DEFICIENCY 4(f)

—

 Automobile or Light Duty Truck Refinishing

This definition

 is added

 in Section 211.122

to

 indicate that the term

includes the repainting of used automobiles or light

 duty trucks.

At hearing on December 14,

 1989,

 in response

 to the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency stated:

..L would

 say that the only person who might be affected would have

been Ford Motor Company

 in Illinois, or

 in the Chicago area, who

manufactures automobiles. ..My understanding

 is that refinishing

of

automobiles

 at Ford Motors

 has been considered as

 a part of the

automobile coating operation.

So

 I don’t believe they are affected

by the rule.

Based on my analysis there should

be

no

 economici

 effects.

(R.

184-185.)

Based upon this testimony, taking

 into account the Section 27(a)

considerations,

 the Board will proceed with the proposed amendments,

as

written.

 As the record indicates that

 it will or should have no economic

effect upon the people of the State of

 Illinois, the Board

 believes that

proceeding with the proposed amendment

 is consistent with the statutory

requirements.

DEFICIENCY 9

-

 Test Methods

This deficiency contains the bulk of the proposed amendments.

 Generally,

the test methods and procedures define

 the manner

 in which measurements to

determine compliance with an emission

 limit or other control requirement shall

be conducted.

 Provisions addressing testing are

 located throughout

35

 Ill.

Adm. Code

 215.

 For test measurements

to

 be consistent and reliable, the

methods and procedures should

 be well—defined, standardized, and up-to-date.

Numerous changes are proposed to accomplish this general objective.

For

convenience, the Board will address the proposed amendments

 in the numerical

order used by the Agency

in

 its Statement of

 Reasons,

 filed with the proposal.

At hearing on December

14,

 1989,

 in response to

 the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency discussed

 the amendments proposed

 to the test methods

in

a

general context, rather that on an

 item by

 item basis.

As

to

all

of

the

proposed changes under deficiency

 no. 9,

 the Agency

 stated:

Testing deficiency covers several different aspects.

 The first one

is sort of

 the tightening of

 testing methods.

 I would like

to

describe that as

an

 incremental effect that will affect everybody,

if and when they have to test.

***

 The tightening of

 the test

procedures will

 add some percentage

 to those costs.

 Whether

it

is

ten percent or

 20 percent,

I

 don’t know exactly.

109—467

—22

Now, turning again to another general category with regard

 to test

methods, that is discretion, elimination of discretion with regard

to test methods, elimination of discretion with regard to emission

limits.

 Based on my experience, the Agency has exercised

its

discretion rarely,

if

 at all, so with those particular categories

of

eliminated discretion

 I would not expect

 to see

 a significant

impact.

The final point

 of testing

 is what

 I would call

 the other changes,

some of the changes to compliance procedures, applicability

levels.

 Again,

 for those things where

it

is

 affected, where those

particular sources or categories are affected,

 I would not see

a

significant

 change based on current practice.

 We have not

 been

interpreting the rules or carrying out the rules significantly

different than the way they are proposed to be changed.

 (R. 186—

189.)

1.

 Section 211.122 Definition

 of Alternative Test Method

For reasons set forth

 in the first notice opinion, this definition was

deleted.

2.

 Section 211.122 Volatile Organic Material Content

A new definition of “volatile organic material content”

 is proposed for

inclusion in Section 211.122.

 This term is used

 in and

 supports the following

sections dealing with the volatile organic material content of substances:

Sections 215.208, 215.409, 215.467 and 215.614.

 The volatile organic content

of a coating or similar material

 is defined

 as the emissions of volatile

organic material which would result from the use or release of the material

without control equipment.

Taking into account the Section 27(a) considerations,

 the Board does not

believe that this definition,

 in and

of

 itself, will have any economic effect

on the people of the State of

 Illinois.

It

is

 simply a definition of a term

used

in

 the rules.

 Thus, the

 Board will proceed to

 second notice with the

definition

 as proposed at first notice.

3.

 Sections 215.102(a)

 Testing Methods for VOM Emissions

Section 215.102(a)

 is proposed

 to provide current methods for testing

organic material and volatile organic material emissions.

 The section

is

expanded to

 include measurement of vent flow rate as well as concentration to

 address emissions in quantitative terms.,

 i.e.,

 kg/hour.

 The accepted methods

for measurement are all USEPA methods.

 This section

 is referenced by Section

215.127(a), 215.410(a), 215.464(a),

 215.585(a), 215.615(a)

 and 215.886(a).

(The Board notes that Section 215.585 has been used

 in R88-3O,

 Limits

to

Gasoline Volatility, adopted February

15,

 1990.

 Thus,

 the changes proposed

to

Section 215.585

 in this proceeding have been moved

 to Section 215.586.)

109—468

-23-

The Board notes that these proposed changes specify that testing

 is to be

conducted in accordance with Section 215.102.

 As this

 is basically an

updating of

 the test methods, taking

 into account the Section 27(a)

considerations,

 the Board does not believe that it will have a significant

economic effect upon the people

 of the State of Illinois.

 Therefore,

the

Board has retained the proposed amendments, as revised

 in accordance with the

discussion under number

 6 below,

 at second notice.

The Board

 notes that

 in post-hearing comments, Abbott Laboratories

 (P.C.

21) proposed that the Board amend Section 215.1O2(b)(2).

 While Abbott’s

proposal may have merit,

 the Agency specifically requested that any other

proposals be processed separate from this proceeding.

 Thus, the Board does

not address Abbott’s proposal

 at this time.

 Further,

 the Board notes

 that

Abbot

 has a pending site-specific rulemaking

 (R88—14)

 in which the proposed

amendment can be considered.

4.

 Section 215.105 Incorporations by Reference

Section 215.105

 is revised

 to update the edition or issuance date of

certain materials incorporated

 by reference and to add three new items:

American Society for Testing and Materials Methods D25O4-83, 02382-83 and

D4457.

This

 is simply

 a matter of updating

 the incorporations by reference

section.

 The Board has retained the proposed amendments

at

 second notice.

5.

 Deletion of Equivalent Control

 Requirements

This proposed section would eliminate the Agency’s authority to approve

equivalent control measures which are not specifically identified

 in the

rule.

 Similar changes are

 also proposed to eliminate equivalent control

requirements in Sections 215.124, 215.241,

 and 215.601.

The Board has received objections

 to this amendment.

 On February 9,

1990, Allsteel,

 Inc.,

 filed its comments which include the following

statement:

The Agency’s proposal narrows the Agency’s own authority to approve

 alternative test methods and requires all

 such changes

 to be treated

as SIP revisions subject

 to USEPA approval.

 This proposal

is

extremely unrealistic given the time frames of

 the SIP approval

process and

 leaves open the question of enforcement while approval

is pending.

 The proposal

 should

 be rejected.

 (P.C.

14,

 at p.4.)

Also on February 9,

 1990,

 Stepan Company

 stated:

Stepan would

 also like to reiterate and unde?~scorethe comments of

other

 industry representatives relating

 to the necessity of

 insuring

flexibility with regard

 to the selection of

 test methods.

The

selection of

 an appropriate test method

is

 by nature site-

specific.

 A regulatory prescription of

 a single test methodology

under these regulations

 is unduly burdensome and must be rejected

by

the Board.

 (P.C.

12,

 at 3-4.)

100

—460

-24-

The Board will

 not proceed with these proposed changes

 at this time.

Taking

 into account the considerations of Section 27(a), the Board

 is not

persuaded that the proposed changes constitute PACT

 in Illinois.

 The Board

has no

 idea of what the Agency has approved

 in the past.

 If the Agency has

approved certain equivalent controls, what will be the status

 of those

approvals?

 Further, the Board

 is concerned by the comment that test methods

are by nature site-specific.

 Before the Board adopts

 a specific test method

for a class of operations, the Board must have information indicating that it

is the appropriate test.

 Finally,

 the Board questions the necessity of

deleting alternate equivalent controls.

So

 long as equivalency

is

demonstrated, what difference does it make how the controls are implemented?

As the Board

 is not persuaded that the proposed changes constitute RACT

in Illinois,

 the Board will

 not proceed with the changes

 in this subdocket.

6.

 Deletion of Test Procedures

as

 “Approved by the Agency”

The proposed revisions delete the use of unspecified procedures

as

“approved by the Agency”

 for determination of compliance.

 A new section,

Section 215.128

 is proposed to provide

 a specific compliance method.

 This new

method was adopted

 by USEPA for

 its New Source Performance Standard, 40 CFR

60, Subpart

Kb.

 Similar changes are proposed to Sections 215.124(a) (8),

215.208(a), 215.447(a)(1) and

 (2), 215.464(a),

 215.582(b) and 215.586(a),

215.603(c).

The Board notes that

 the comments discussed above also apply to these

proposed actions.

 However,

 the Board will proceed with these proposed

changes,

 as amended

 at second

 notice.

 Generally, the Board has no objection

to

 specifying test methods for certain processes.

 However, the record does

not support limiting the potential universe

 of test methods.

The

 Board has

added

 a provision

 in the sections which specify test methods allowing for

alternat~test methods.

 The language that the Board has added

 is basically as

follows:

Any alternate test method must be approved by the Agency, which

shall

 consider data comparing the performance

 of the proposed

alternative

 to the performance of the approved test method(s).

If

the Agency determines that such data demonstrates that the proposed

alternative will

 achieve results equivalent

 to the approved test

method(s), the Agency shall

 approve the proposed alternative.

The

 Board

is

 not persuaded by the record to

 limit the types

of

 test methods

that may be employed.

 The Board’s concern

 is that the test results be

accurate.

 If an alternate method

is

 at least

 as accurate as the specified

method and someone prefers

 to use

it,

 so be

it.

*The Board notes that virtually identical language was added to Section

215.585(g)

 in R88-30,

 Limits

 to Gasoline Volatility, adopted February 15,

1990.

 As the

 language was the result

of

an

 agreement with the Joint Committee

on Administrative Rules

 (JCAR),

 the Board does not anticipate

 an objection

from JCAR.

109—

470

-25—

USEPA’s concern appears

to

 be that the most current methods

 be employed

and that all methods

 be specified

 in the SIP.

 (See Blue Book,

p.

 2-12).

Where equivalency

 is demonstrated, the alternate test method may be the most

current.

 As far as the test method being

 specified

 in the SIP,

if

a.

specification of test methods

 in an operating permit does not suffice, the

Board can,

if

 so requested, update

 its rules periodically to include the

alternate test methods the Agency has approved.

7.

 Request

 by the Agency for Testing

Several

 sections provide for formal demonstrations of compliance by

testing upon a reasonable request

 by the Agency.

 Those provisions are

proposed

to

 be deleted and replaced by paragraph

(b)

 in new Section 215.127

and Section 215.128.

 These

 proposed sections address test methods and

procedures.

 The wording of the new paragraph only addresses a request

 by the

Agency for a formal demonstration of compliance

 by testing.

 It does not

address the method of testing

 or other means

 by which compliance or

noncompliance may be determined.

Sections involved are as follows:

 Sections 215.124(a) (8),

215.4O4(a)/215.41O(b), 215.464(a)/215.464(b), 215.565(b), 215.615(b),

and

215.886(b).

Basically, the new language being proposed

 is similar to the language

being deleted.

 The differences are as

 follows-—Cl)

 a “reasonable request”

is

now a “request”,

and

 (2) “methods approved by the Agency”

 has been changed

in

accordance with the discussion under Paragraph

 no. 6, above.

The Board

 is concerned

 by the deletion of the word reasonable

 in these

sections.

 Although

 the word

 “reasonable” has been the

 source of many a

discussion with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

 (JCAR),

the

 Board

believes that this

is

 a situation where “reasonable”

 must remain.

“Reasonable”

 adds to this provision the notion that an unreasonable request

may be the

 subject of an appeal.

 Were

 it not

 to be included, any and all

requests by the Agency would require compliance.

 The Board

 is not persuaded

to make such

 a change based upon this record.

 Thus,

 the term “reasonable” has

been added

 to each of the sections involved to maintain the

 status quo.

The

Board

 sees no reason why this should threaten federal approvability.

8.

 Advance notice

 to the Agency for testing

Certain

 of the existing sections require advance notice

 to the Agency for

emissions testing

 to demonstrate compliance.

 These sections

 are proposed

for

deletion.

 New sections are proposed which require the

 same notice

 to the

Agency.

 Again,

 the Board does not see any substantive change.

 It appears to

be primarily a clean-up of

 the rules.

 Section involved are as

 follows:

Sections 215.124(a)(9), 215.127(c),

 215.128(b), 215.410(c),

 215.464(c),

215.586(c),

 and 215.615(c).

‘

As there

 is little,

 if any, difference from the present language, the

Board will proceed

 to second notice with the proposed amendments.

109—471

-26-

9.

 Addition of emission test methods

New sections are proposed which provide current test methods and

 procedures for determination of compliance with these requirements.

 The test

method

 is provided

 in paragraph

 (a), which refers to Section 215.102(a).

The

sections involved are the same as those noted

 in the two preceding paragraphs

above.

The Board wiTl proceed to second notice with these changes.

 The language

in issue here merely refers to the test methods

 in Section 215.102.

Miscellaneous

Much of the remainder of the proposed amendments

 are specific references

tothe up—dated test methods.

 The Board

 has retained

 the specific references;

however,

as

 noted above, the Board added language providing for alternate test

methods.

In Section 215.602, Exemptions, the Board has retained the proposed

amendment which would translate the gallons per month into liters per month.

However, the Board has not proceeded with the proposed sentence that stated:

If

 a perchloroethylene dry cleaning operation

 is ever subject to the

requirements of

 this Subpart,

 the requirements of the Subpart will

continue to apply to the operation notwithstanding

 a reduction in

emissions so

 as to qualify for exemption.

The record does not provide substantive reasons why the provision

is

 included

in the proposal.

 The Board

 is troubled by what could result from this

provision.

 It would appear that of

 two separate operations,

 both doing the

same amount of business, one could

 be subject

 to the

 rules and the other would

not.

 The Board requires more information before

 it will promulgate a rule to

have such an effect.

DEFICIENCY

11

-

 Petroleum Refinery Monitoring Program for Leaks

Revised Section 215.447(b)(1) removes the present exemption from leak

monitoring requirements for inaccessible valves

 at petroleum refineries

statewide.

 New Section 215.447(b)(2) provides for inaccessible valves

at

petroleum refineries statewide to

 be tested at

 least once each calendar

year.

 Refineries must provide

 an identification of these valves and

 a reason

why these valves are inaccessible.

 Any valve not

 identified under this

section falls instead under the normal monitoring program for leaks given

in

Section 215.447.

At hearing on December

14,

 1989,

in

 response to the Hearing Officer

Order, the Agency stated:

This rule applies

 to petroleum refineries.

 I believe there are

six

in the state:

 Clark, Blue Island; Mobil,

 Joliet; Union Oil, Lemont;

Clark, Wood River;

 Shell, Wood River;

 and Marathon, Robinson.

109—472

-27—

Texaco, Lawrenceville

 is currently in a shut down status.

 I am not

sure if

 it would start up again. ~

 I believe they would all

be

affected.

 All would

 be affected, as

 I believe

all

 of them would

have at

 least one so-called inaccessible valve.

(R.

 190-191.)

With respect to anticipated economic affects, the Agency stated:

This

 I can’t really answer.

 I can only say

 it would depend on some

of the inaccessible components they have,

 the degree of

inaccessibility,

 and their capabilities

 to reach those inaccessible

components.

 In general, because we are talking about changes

in

practices,

not

 installing new equipment necessarily,

 I would

characterize these

 as sort of

 at most an intermediate

 level of

impact.

(R.

 191.)

This proposed amendment poses

 a somewhat more difficult analysis.

 On the

one hand,

 noone has challenged or objected to the proposed amendment.

 On the

other hand,

 the testimony suggests that there will be

 impact, but the extent

of that impact appears to

 be uncertain,

 yet not minimal.

Arguably,

 based upon this testimony, the Board can assess economic

reasonableness considerations.

 However,

 the Board notes that the difficulty

of reaching these “inaccessible” components can differ from source

to

source.

 Unfortunately,

 the record does not provide much guidance.

 Further,

the Board

is

 aware that requiring monitoring of inaccessible valves

 can raise

health and safety concerns.

In light of these uncertainties,

 the Board

 is not persuaded

 to proceed

with the proposed amendment.

 Although the Board

 is aware of the documents the

Agency submitted in support of this amendment (i.e.,

 the SIP Call Letter; the

Blue Book, page 2-13;

 the Federal

 Letter; and the Settlement Agreement),

the

Board

 notes that none of these documents specifically address the economic or

technical

 implications of complying with the rule.

Based upon the record, taking

 into account the considerations of Section

27(a),

 the Board

 is not persuaded that the proposed amendment

is

 PACT for

Illinois.

DEFICIENCY

13

-

 Bulk Gasoline Plant Exemption

Revised Section 215.581(e)(2) changes the statewide exemption level

of

350,000 gallons per year for

 “load

 in”

 vapor balance systems

 (Stage

I)

 a.t bulk

gasoline plants throughput

 to 4000 gallons per day as determined

by

a

 30 day

running average.

Revised Section 215.581(f)(1) changes

 the applicability level

for

throughput for

 “load out” vapor balance systems

 (Stage

I)

 at bulk gasoline

plants from 1,000,000 gallons per year to 4000 gal ions per day as determined

by a 30 day running average.

 The rule will apply

 to bulk plants that either

(1) distribute gasoline

 to gasoline dispensing facilities requiring load

in

vapor balance

 (Stage

I)

or

 (2) are located

 in Boone,

 Cook, DuPage, Kane,

 Lake,

Madison, McHenry, Peoria,

 Rock Island,

St.

 Clair, Tazewell, Will or Winnebago

counties.

100—473

-28-

New Section 215.581(h) provides

 that newly subject bulk gasoline plants

will have one year from the date of adoption of the revised sections to

achieve compliance.

New

Section 215.581(i) adds

 a provision that a bulk

gasoline plant will continue to remain subject

 to Section 215.581 once

it

becomes

 subject

 to this section.

At

 hearing on December

14,

 1989,

 in response to

 the Hearing Officer

Order,

 the Agency stated:

Bulk gasoline plant

is

 a defined term

in

 the Board’s rules.

It

is

a

facility that receives gasoline from

 a terminal and then distributes

it

 to smaller facilities.

 I believe there

is

 somewhere bet~eenfive

hundred

and

 a thousand of those

 facilities

 in the State.

 Many of

those already comply

with the Boards rules.

~

Dr.

 Reed has

already testified

 that the change

 in the applicability level

 doesn’t

appear

 to be

 a very

significant change.

 We are going

 from 350,000

gallons per year to four thousand gallons per day.

 Those

 seemed

pretty comparable.

 Ho~.ever,there night

be

 a couple of

facilities

where

 that moves from not being subject

 to being subject. ~

In

terms

of

if

 somebody becomes

 subject

to

 the rule,

 they would have to

install

 a vapor valve system

 if not already

 installed.

 I don’t know

how much one of those costs.

 I think

 I would qualify

it

as

something intermediate.

It

 is hardware that

is

 installed

as

operational

 equipment.

(P.

 192-193.)

Although this proposed amendment would not appear to have much

 impact,

the Board will

 not proceed.

 The testimony indicates that there may be some

new facilities brought within

 the purview of the regulation.

 These new

facilities would have to install

 a vapor valve

 system,

if

one

 is not already

installed.

 However,

 the record gives

 no guidance

 as to how much such a system

would cost.

 The record fails

 to persuade the Board

 that

 these rules are PACT

for Illinois.

As

 a result,

 the Board will

 not proceed with these

 proposed

amendments

 in this subdocket.

DEFICIENCY

15

—

 Solvent Metal Cleaning

Revised Section 215.181 removes

 the exemptions from control

 and operating

requirements

 for cold cleaners,

 open top vapor degreasers and conveyorized

degreasers for certain counties.

 New Section 215.186 allows newly subject

cold cleaners, open top vapor degreasers

 and conveyorized degreasers one year

to achieve compliance from the date of adoption of revised Section 215.181.

At

 hearing on December

14,

 1989,

 in response

to

 the Hearing Officer

Order,

 the Agency

 stated:

We are

 talking about going from applicability level

of

 15 pounds per

day to eliminating

 that essentially as zero ~nVOM emissions.

We

are

 looking at

 a category of sources that wëhaven’t really focused

cur attention on.

So

it

 is hard

 to’ ‘speculate.

***

 There could

be

quite a few degreasers which currently have

not

been required to

comply with the Board’s rule that would

 be required

 to comply with

100—4714

-29-

the Board’s rules. ~

 I would have to go back to the general

description of

 variable economical effects.

 There may be some

degreasers that already comply with the Board’s rules but are not

subject

 to those limitations at the present

 time.

 There may be

other sources which have to make minor changes, installing shut off

operating practices.

 There may be

 a few sources out there who have

to make significant changes, either replacing a degreaser or

installing control

 equipment.

(R.

 195—196.)

Here too, the record does

 not persuade the Board that these rules

are

RACT for Illinois.

 The Board

 is unable

 to determine who might

 be affected and

what effect there might be.

 The Agency itself

 admits that this

is

 a category

of sources that has not been focused upon.

As

 a result,

 the Board will not

proceed

 to second notice with this proposed amendment

 in this subdocket.

STATEWIDE APPLICABILITY

In

 its final comments, the Agency states that the following proposed

rules apply statewide:

all

 the definitions for

 Part 211,

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code

215.447, 215.581,

 and the sections correcting the

 test methods deficiency

(deficiency 9).

 The Agency notes

 that both

 it and USEPA acknowledged that

statewide applicability

is

 not federally required.

 However,

 in this

proceeding,

 as well as

all

 other regulatory proceedings,

 the Agency asserts

that

 the Board may adopt rules that go beyond what

 is federally required.

Apparently,

 the Agency requests that the Board adopt the proposed amendments

so as to apply on

 a statewide basis.

While the Board does not necessarily agree that

 it may adopt

a

 rule which

goes beyond what

 is federally required in

 a Section 28.2 proceeding,

 the Board

notes that the Agency’s request’is not germane

 in light of the amendments with

which the Board

 is proceeding.

 The definitional changes and test method up-

dates do not

 lend themselves

 to application

 in geographical

 areas

 less than

 state—wide.

 The proposed amendments which specify applicability

 in certain

geographical

 areas have been transferred to subdocket

 (B);

 thus, the Board

is

not here presented with the question of whether to make them apply state-wide.

IERG MOTION TO FILE AND AGENCY MOTION TO STRIKE

On February 20,

 1990,

 the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

 (IERG)

filed

 its post-hearing comments under a motion

to

 file instanter.

In

 support

of

 its motion,

 IERG states

 that the

 nature and substance of

 its comments was

affected by

 the Board’s Order of February

8,

 1990, and

 that it was unable

to

complete

 the preparation and

 review of

 its Comments by the due date.

On February 27,

 1990,

 the Agency

 filed

 a motion

 to strike the post-

hearing comments of

the

 IERG.

 The Agency argues that

 IERG filed

 its post-

hearing comments after

 a Board

 scheduled deadline withqut sufficient cause.

The Agency argues that there

 is nothing

in

 IERG’s comments that have any

arguable connection

 to the Board’s Order of February 8,

 1990. The Agency

therefore requests that the Board strike

 IERG’s comments.

109—475

—30—

On March

7,

 1990,

 IERG filed its response to

 the Agency’s motion.

 IERG

states that the late filing of

 its comments will not delay the proceeding and

that additional

 reasons led to the filing of the comments

 late.

Although

 IERG’s post hearing comments were filed after the date set by

Board Order,

 the comments were filed under motion

 to file instanter.

The

Board notes that the delayed filing

 has not prejudiced the Board’s timetable

for adoption of the Second Notice Order

 in this matter.

As

 a result,

the

Agency’s motion

 is hereby denied.

 IERG’s motion

 to file is granted.

SECTION 215.585

The Board

 notes that the Order includes amendments

 to Section 215.585

which were adopted on February 15,

 1990,

 in R88—3O(A), Limits to Gasoline

Volatility.

 After the filing of those adopted amendments with

 the Secretary

of State,

 the Board discovered that two subsections were incorrect;

subsections

(e)

and

 (h) contained

 the first notice language without the

changes made

 in response to comments received during

 the first notice

period.

 As the Secretary of State’s Administrative Code Division’s

regulations do not

 allow the Board

 to file corrections, the Board must correct

 the language of those subsections

 by regular rulemaking procedures.

As

 those

subsections were adopted pursuant to proper notice and comment and

 as Section

215.585 was proposed for amendment

 in this proceeding, the Board

 is simply

adding the correct language to this Order

so

 as to effectuate filing

 of the

correct language with the Secretary of State.

 This is not

 a substantive

change to this proceeding or

 to R88-30(A).

It

is

 simply to get what the Board

adopted on February

 15, l99~onto the Secretary of State’s official

 files.

The language proposed as Section 215.585

 in this proceeding has accordingly

been renumbered

 to Section 215.586.

SUBDOCKET B

The proposed amendments with which the Board

 is not today proceeding

to

second notice

 are hereby placed into subdocket(B).

 Consistent with the

Board’s Order

 of February 8,

 1990, the Agency

 is directed

to

 inform the Board

of

 its intentions with respect

 to the subdocket

 (B) proposed amendments

in

light

 of the federal

 parallel

 processing.

This opinion supports the following Order.

ORDER

The Board

 hereby proposes the following rules for

 second notice.

The

Clerk

 is directed

 to submit the proposed amendments

 to the Joint

 Committee on

Administrative Rules

 (JCAR).

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL-•PROTECTI’ON

SUBTITLE

B:

 AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c:

 EMISSION STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

100—476

—31—

PART 211

SUBPART B:

 DEFINITIONS

Section

211.121

 Other Definitions

211.122

 Definitions

Section 211.122

 Definitions

“Automobile

 or Light Duty Truck

 Refinishing”:

 the repainting of used

automobiles or light duty trucks.

“Fabric Coating”:

 the coating of

 a textile substrate,

 including operations

where the coating impregnates the

 substrate.

“Transfer Efficiency”:

 the we4~ht

OF

vo4w~eratio

 of the

 amount

 of coating

solids adheF4R~to the r~ateF4a3be4R~coated

 d4v4ded by

 the we4~hto~vo3w~e

deposited onto

 a part or product to the total

 amount of coating solids

de44vered

 to the eoat4ng appT4cateF

and

~4t4p44edby ~QQ to e~~a4

a

peFeentage used.

“Vinyl Coating”:

 the application of a topcoat or printing

 to vinyl

 coated

fabric or vinyl

 sheets; provided, however,

 that the application of

an

organisol or plastisol

 is not vinyl

 coating.

Volatile Organic Material Content:

 the emissions of volatile organic material

which would result from the exposure of

 a coating, printing

 ink, fountain

solution, tire spray,

 dry cleaning waste

 or other similar material

 to the air,

including any drying or curing,

 in the absence

 of any control equipment.

 VOMC

is typically expressed as

 Kg VOM/liter

 (lb VOM/gallon) of coating or coating

solids, or Kg VOM/Kg

 (lb VOM/lb)

 of material.

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B:

 AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

c:

 EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR

STATIONARY

 SOURCES

PART 215

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

SUBPART A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

215.100

 Introduction

215.101

 Clean-up and Disposal Operations

215.102

 Testing Methods

215.103

 Abbreviations and Conversion Factors

100—4 77

—32—

215.104

 Definitions

215.105

 Incorporations by Reference

215. 106

 Afterburners

215.107

 Determination of Applicability

SUBPART B:

 ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE AND LOADING

OPERATIONS

Section

215.121

 Storage Containers

215.122

 Loading Operations

215.123

 Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks

215.124

 External Floating Roofs

215.125

 Compliance Dates and Geographical

 Areas

215.126

 Compliance Plan

215.127

 Emissions Testiflg

215.128

 Measurement

 of Seal Gaps

SUBPART

E:

 SOLVENT CLEANING

Section

215.181

 Solvent Cleaning in General

215.182

 Cold Cleaning

215.183

 Open Top Vapor Degreasing

215.184

 Conveyorized Degreasing

215.185

 Compliance Plan

SUBPART

F:

 COATING OPERATIONS

Section

215.202

 Compliance Schedules

215.204

 Emission Limitations for Manufacturing Plants

215.205

 Alternative Emission Limitations

215.206

 Exemptions from Emission Limitations

215.207

 Compliance by Aggregation of Emission Sources

215.208

 Testing Methods for So3vent Volatile Organic Material

 Content

215.209

 Exemption from General

 Rule on Use of Organic

Material

215.210

 Alternative Compliance Schedule

215.211

 Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

215.212

 Compliance

 Plan

215.213

 Special Requirements for Compliance Plan

SUBPART H:

 SPECIAL LIMITATIONS FOR SOURCES

 IN MAJOR URBANIZED

AREAS WHICH ARE NONATTAINMENT FOR OZONE

Section

215.240

 Applicability

215.241

 External Floating Roofs

215.245

 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing

215.249

 Compliance Dates

109—478

—33.—

SUBPART P:

 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

Section

215.401

 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing

215.402

 Exemptions

215.403

 Applicability of Subpart

K

215.404

 Testing and Monitoring (Repealed)

215.405

 Compliance Dates and Geographical

 Areas

215.406

 Alternative Compliance Plan

215.407

 Compliance Plan

215.408

 Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing

215.409

 Testing Methods

 of Volatile Organic Material Content

215.410

 Emissions Testing

SUBPART

Q:

 LEAKS FROM SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL AND

POLYMER MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT

Section

215.420

 Applicability

215.421

 General

 Requirements

215.422

 Inspection Program Plan for Leaks

 215.423

 Inspection Program for Leaks

215.424

 Repairing

 Leaks

215.425

 Recordkeeping for Leaks

215.426

 Report for

 Leaks

215.427

 Alternative Program for Leaks

215.428

 Compliance Dates

215.429

 Compliance Plan

215.430

 General Requirements

215.431

 Inspection Program Plan for Leaks

215.432

 Inspection Program for Leaks

215.433

 Repairing Leaks

215.434

 Recordkeeping for

 Leaks

215.435

 Report for Leaks

215.436

 Alternative Program for Leaks

215.437

 Open-Ended Valves

215.438

 Standards for Control

 Devices

215.439

 Compliance Date

SUBPART R:

 PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED INDUSTRIES; ASPHALT

MATERIALS

Section

215.441

 Petroleum Refinery Waste Gas Disposal

215.442

 Vacuum Producing Systems

215.443

 Wastewater (Oil/Water)

 Separator

215.444

 Process

 Unit Turnarounds

215.445

 Leaks General Requirements

215.446

 Monitoring Program Plan for Leaks

215.447

 Monitoring Program for Leaks

215.448

 Recordkeeping

 for Leaks

215.449

 Reporting

 for Leaks

10~—47~

215.450

 Alternative Program for Leaks

215.451

 Sealing Device

 Requirements

215.452

 Compliance Schedule for Leaks

215.453

 Compliance Dates and Geographical

 Areas

SUBPART S:

 RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS

Section

215.461

 Manufacture

 of Pneumatic Rubber Tires

215.462

 Green Tire Spraying Operations

215.463

 Alternative Emission Reduction Systems

215.464

 Emissions Testing and Mon4toF4n~

215.465

 Compliance

 Dates and Geographical

 Areas

215.466

 Compliance Plan

215.467

 Testing Methods for Volatile Organic Material Content

SUBPART Y:

 GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Section

215.581

 Bulk Gasoline Plants

215.582

 Bulk Gasoline Terminals

215.583

 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

215.584

 Gasoline Delivery Vessels

215.585

 Gasoline Volatility Standards

215.586

 Emissions Testing

SUBPART

Z:

 DRY CLEANERS

Section

215.601

 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners

215.602

 Exemptions

215.603

 Test4n~and MeR4tor4ng Leaks

215.604

 Compliance Dates

 and Geographical Areas

215.605

 Compliance

 Plan

215.606

 Exception

 to Compliance Plan

215.607

 Standards for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners

 215.608

 Operating Practices for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners

215.609

 Program for Inspection and Repair of

 Leaks

215.610

 Testing and Monitoring

215.611

 Exemption for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners

215.612

 Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

215.613

 Compliance Plan

215.614

 Testing Method for Volatile Organic Material Content of Wastes

215.615

 Emissions Testing

SUBPART AA:

 PAINT AND

 INK MANUFACTURING

Section

215.620

 Applicability

215.621

 Exemption for Waterbase Material

 and Heatset Offset

Ink

215.623

 Permit Conditions

215.624

 Open-top Mills, Tanks,

 Vats or Vessels

109—480

—35—

215.625

 Grinding Mills

215.628

 Leaks

215.630

 Clean Up

215.636

 Compliance Date

SUBPART BB:

 POLYSTYRENE PLANTS

Section

215.875

 Applicability of Subpart 88

215.877

 Emissions Limitation

 at Polystyrene

 Plants

215.879

 Compliance Date

215.881

 Compliance Plan

215.883

 Special

 Requirements for Compliance Plan

215.886

 Emissions Testing and Mon4teF4n~

SUBPART PP:

 MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED PRODUCT MANUFACTURING

 PROCESSES

Section

215.920

 Applicability

215.923

 Permit Conditions

215.926

 Control Requirements

SUBPART

QQ:

 MISCELLANEOUS FORMULATION MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section

215.940

 Applicability

215.943

 Permit Conditions

215.946

 Control Requirements

SUBPART RR:

 MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING

PROCESSES

Section

215.960

 Applicability

215.963

 Permit Conditions

215.966

 Control Requirements

Section 215.102

 Testing Methods

a~

 The tota4 99an4G ~ateF4a~concent~at4ons4n an eff3~entstFeapl sha

be meas~iFedby

 a f3a~e4on4~at4ondetectoFT or by other methods approved

by the

 T3i.nois Environ~iental~P~ote?tionAgency (Agency~accord4ng

 to the

pFov4s4ons

 of ~

&33T

Ad~Gode

~Q4’T

~

 Volatile organic material

 or organic material

 concentrations

 in a

stream

 is measured by Method

18,

 40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

 incorporated by

reference

 in Section 215.105.

 Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compounds

incorporated

 by reference

 in Section 215.105 except

 as follows.

 ASIM

D—4457,

 incorporated

 by reference in Section 215.1O5., may be used for

 halogenated organic compounds.

 Method

25,

 25A or 258, 40 CFR 60,

Appendix

A,

 incorporated by reference

 in Section 215.105 may be

1fl9—~81

-

substituted for Method

 18 provided the

 source owner or operator submits

calibration data and other proof that this method

 provides the

information

 in the emission units of

 the applicable standard.

The

volumetric flow rate and gas velocity

 is determined

 in accordance with

Methods

1,

1A,

2,

2A,

 2C, 2D,

 3 and

4,

40

 CFR Part 60, Appendix A,

incorporated

 by reference

 in Section 215.105.

 Any other alternate test

method must be approved

 by the Agency, which shall

 consider data

comparing the performance of

 the proposed alternative to

 the performance

of the approved test method(s).

 If the Agency determines that such data

demonstrates that the proposed alternative will achieve results

equivalent

 to the approved test method(s),

 the Agency shall

 approve the

proposed alternative.

b)

 Measurement of Vapor Pressures

1)

 For a single-component, the actual

 vapor pressure shall

 be determined

by ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) Method 0-2879—83

(Approved

 1983), incorporated by reference in Section 215.105,

 or the

vapor pressure may be obtained from a published source such as:

Boublik, T.,

V.

 Fried and

E.

 Hala,

 “Ime Vapor Pressure

 of Pure

Substances,” Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973),

Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company

(1984),

 CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Chemical

 Rubber

Publishing Company (1986-1987),

 Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry, John

A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill

 Book Company (1985).

2)

For

 a mixture, the actual

 vapor pressure shall

 be determined by ASTM

Method 0-2879-83

 (Approved 1983),

 incorporated

 by reference

in

Section 215.105, or the vapor pressure may be taken

 as either:

A)

 If the vapor pressure

 of the volatile organic

 liquid

is

specified in the applicable rule,

 the lesser of

 the sum of the

actual

 vapor pressure of each component or each volatile organic

material component,

 as determined

 in accordance with Section

215.102(b)(1), weighted by its mole fraction; or

B)

 If the vapor pressure of the organic material or volatile

organic material

 is specified

 in the applicable rule,

 the sum of the

actual

 vapor pressure of each such component as determined

in

accordance with Section 215.1O2(b)(1) weighted

by

 its mole fraction.

Section 215.104

 Definitions

“Furniture Coating Application Line”:

 The combination of coating

application equipment, flash-off area,

 spray booths, ovens,

 conveyors,

and other equipment operated

 in a predetermined sequence for purpose of

applying coating niater4a4s

 to wood furniture.

Section 215.105

 Incorporation by Reference

The following materials are incorporated

 by reference:

109—482

—37-

~)

 American Society for Testing and Materials,

 1916 Race Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103:

1)

 ASTM 0

 1644-59 Method A

2)

 ASTM 0

 1475-60

3)

 ASTM

 0 2369-flSl

4)

 ASTM D 2879-83 (Approved

 1983)

5)

 ASTM 0 323—82

 (Approved 1982)

6)

 ASTM 0 86-82

 (Approved

 1982)

7)

 ASTM

 E 260-73 (Approved 1973),

E

 168-67

 (Reapproved

 1977),

E

169-63

 (Reapproved 1981),

E

20

 (Approved

 1985)

8)

 ASTM

 D 97-66

9)

 ASTM 0

 1946-67

10)

 ASTM

0

 2382-76

~fl

ASTM

 D 2504-83

1?.).

 ASTM 0 2382-83

~

 ASTM D—4457-85

b)

 Federal Standard

 141a, Method 4082.1.

c)

 National

 Fire Codes,

 National Fire Prevention Association, Battery

March Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269

 (1979).

d)

 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

 D.C., EPA—

450/2—77—026, Appendix A.

e)

 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,

 EPA-

450/2—78-051 Appendix A and Appendix B (December

 1978).

f)

 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published by Executive

Office of the President,

 Office

 of Management and Budget, Washington,

D.C.,

1972

g)

 40 CFR 60T Append4x A ~

 (July

1,

 1988).

h)

 United States

 Environmental Protection Agency; Washington D.C.,

 EPA—

450/2-78-041.

(BOARD NOTE:

 The incorporations by reference listed

 above contain no

later amendments or editions.)

109—483

-38-

Section 215.122

 Loading Operations

a)

 No person shall

 cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kg/hr

(8

 lbs/hr)

 of organic material into the atmosphere during

 the loading

of any organic material from the aggregate loading pipes of any

 loading facility having through-put of greater than

 151 cubic meters

per day (40,000 gal/day)

 into any railroad tank car, tank truck or

trailer unless such loading facility

 is equipped with submerged

loading pipes, submerged fill,

 or a device

 that is equally effective

in controlling emissions and

 is approved by the Agency according to

the provisions

of

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 201.

b)

 No person shall cause or allow the loading

of

 any organic material

into any stationary tank having

 a storage capacity

 of greater than

946

1

 (250 gal),

 unless such tank is equipped with

 a permanent

submerged

 loading pipe,

 submerged fill,

 or an equivalent device

approved by the Agency according to

 the provisions

of

35

 Ill.

 Adrn.

Code

 201, or unless such tank

is

 a pressure tank as described in

Section 215.121(a)

or

 is fitted with a recovery system

 as described

in Section 215.121(b)(2).

c)

 Exception:

If

 no odor nuisance exists the limitations of this

Section shall only apply to

 the loading of volatile organic liquid

with a vapor pressure of

 17.24 kPa (2.5 psia) or greater at 294.3°K

(70°F).

Section 215.124

 External

 Floating Roofs

a)

 In addition to meeting the requirements of Section 215.123(b),

no

owner or operator of

 a stationary storage tank equipped with an

external floating roof

 shall

 cause or allow the storage of any

volatile petroleum liquid

 in the tank unless:

1)

 The tank has been fitted with a continuous secondary seal

extending from the floating roof to

 the tank wall

 (rim mounted

secondary

 seal)

 or any other device which controls volatile organic

material emissions with an effectiveness equal

to

 or greater than a

rim mounted secondary seal;

2)

 Each seal closure device meets

 the following requirements:

A)

 The seal

 is intact

 and uniformly in place

 around the

circumference of the floating roof between the floating

roof and tank wall;

and

B)

 The accumulated area of gaps exceeding 0.32 centimeter

 (1/8

inch)

 in width between the secondary

 seal and the tank wall

shall not exceed 21.2 square centimeters per meter of tank

diameter (1.0 square inches

 per foot of tank dia.meter).T as

deter~4nedby ~ethedsor pFoeed~resapproved by the Agency~

109—484

-39-

3)

 Emergency roof drains are provided with slotted membrane fabric

covers or equivalent covers across

at

 least 90 percent of the

area of the opening;

4)

 Openings are equipped with projections into the tank which

remain below the

 liquid surface at all

 times;

5)

 Inspections are conducted prior

 to May

1

 of each year to

 insure

compliance with Section 215.124(a);

6)

 The secondary seal gap

 is measured prior

 to May

 1 of each year~

4n accordance w5th methods or procedures approved

 by the Agen?y~

7)

 Records of

 the types of volatile petroleum liquid

 stored, the

maximum true vapor pressure of the

 liquid

 as stored, the results

of the inspections and the results of the secondary seal gap

measurements are maintained and available to the Agency, upon

verbal

 or written request, at

 any reasonable

 time for a minimum

of

 two years after

 the date on which

 the record was madej.

8~

 Upon a reasonab4e request

 by the AgencyT

 the owner or operator

of

 a vo3at44e organ4c mater4a

 source requ4red

 to comp4y w4th

~eet4on21

 124~a)~

 at h4s own expenseT demonstrates comp44ance

by methods or procedures approved

 by the Agency~an~

9)

 A person p4ann4ng to conduct a vo3at43e organ4c mateF3a4

em4ss4on test

 to demonstrate comp44ance w4th gect4ons 2~2~

and 21~T124not4f4es the Agency of that 4ntent not 4ess than ~Q

 days before the p4anned 4n4t4at4on

 of the tests

 so that

the

Agency nay observe the testT

b)

 The requ4rements of Sect4on 245124a

 Subsection

(a)

 sha4T not does

not apply

 to any stationary storage tank equipped with an external

floating roof:

1)

 Exempted under Section 215.123(a)(2) through 215.123(a)(6);

2)

 Of welded construction equipped with a metallic type shoe seal

having

 a secondary seal from the top of the shoe seal

 to the

tank wall

 (shoe-mounted secondary seal);

3)

 Of welded construction equipped with

 a metallic type shoe

 seal,

a liquid-mounted foam

 seal,

 a liquid-mounted liquid-filled—type

seal,

 or other closure device

 of equivalent control efficiency

approved by the Agency

 in which

 a petroleum liquid with

 a true

vapor pressure

 less than 27.6 kPa

 (4.0 psia)

 at 294.3°K (70°F)

is stored; or

4)

 Used to store crude oil.

Section 215.127

 Emissions Testing

lOO—4R5

-40-

~

 Any tests of organic material emissions,

 including tests conducted to

determine control equipment efficiency,

 shall

 be conducted

in

accordance with the methods and procedures specified

 in Section

 215.102.

~)

 Upon a reasonable request

by

 the Agency, the owner or operator of an

organic material emission source required

 to comply with this Subpart

shall

 conduct emissions testing,

 at such person’s own expense,

to

demonstrate compliance.

ç~

 A person planning to conduct an organic material emission test to

demonstrate compliance with this Subpart shall

 notify the Agency of

that intent not

 less than

 30 days before the planned initiation of

the tests

 so the Agency may observe

 the test.

Section 215.128

 Measurement

 of Seal Gaps

~

 Any measurements

 of secondary seal gaps shall

 be conducted

in

accordance with the methods and procedures

 specified

 in 40 CFR 60,

Subpart Kb,

 incorporated by reference

 in Section 215.105.

p)

 A person planning to conduct

 a measurement

of

 seal

 gaps

to

demonstrate compliance with this Subpart shall

 notify the Agency

of

that intent not

 less than 30 days before the planned performance of

the tests

 so the Agency may observe the test.

Section 215.206

 Exemptions from Emission Limitations

a)

 In Counties other than Cook, DuPage,

 Kane,

 Lake, McHenry, Macoupin,

Madison, Monroe, St. Clair and Will

 the limitations of this Subpart

shall not apply to:

1)

 Coating plants whose emissions of volatile organic material

as

limited

 by the operating permit will not exceed

 22.7 Mg/year

(25

T/year),

 in the absence of air pollution control equipment; or.

2)

 Sources used exclusively

 for chemical or physical analysis or

determination of product quality and commercial acceptance

provided that:

A)

 The operation of the source

 is not an

 integral part of the

production process;

B)

 The emissions from the source

 do not exceed 363 kg

 (800

lbs)

 in any calendar month;

 and,

C)

 The exemption

 is approved

 in writing

 by the Agency.

~

 lnter4er body spray coat4ng mater4a

 for three—p4ece stee4 cans

used by Wat4onaT Can Gorporat4o~at

 4ts Pockford can

manufactur4ng p3ant

 4n Loves Park~4434no4s1 prov4ded that~

109—486

-41-

A3

 The em4ss4on of voat43e organ4c mater4a4 from the 4nter4or

body spray coat4ng

 4ne sha33 not exceed Q~7Okg~3

~T9

3b/gaJ4 of eeat4ng mater4al~exe3ud4ng water1 de4vered to

the eoat4ng app34eator~and

B3

 The em4ss4on of voat44e organ4c mater4a3 shal4 compy w4th

the provis4ons of ~e?t4on 215~204by use of the 4nterna3

offset prov4s4ons

 of Sect4on 2~5~207

 computed on a week3y

we4ghted average bas4sT

b)

 The limitations of Section 215.204(j)

 shall

 not apply

 to the

Waukegan,

-—

 Illinois, facilities of the Outboard Marine Corporation,

so long as the emissions

 of volatile organic material

 related to the

surface coating of miscellaneous metal

 parts and products

 at those

facilities do not exceed

 35 tons per year.

c)

 Notwithstanding

 the limitations of Section 215.204(k) (2),

 the John

Deere Harvester-Moline Works

 of Deere

 and Company, Moline,

 Illinois,

shall

 not cause or permit the emission of volatile organic material

from

 its existing green and yellow flocoating

 operations

 to exceed

a

weekly average of 6.2

 lb/gal.

Section 215.208

 Testing Methods for go4vent Volatile Organic Material

Content

a)

 The fo3low4ng methods of ana3y24ng the sovent content

 of coat4ngs1

as rev4sed from t4me to t4me1 or any other e~w4va4entprocedure

approved by the Agency1 sha3

 by sued as app34eab4e~

13

 A~TM0 4644 59 Method A

23

 ASTM

 P 1475 60

~33

ASTM

 P 2269 33

43

 Federa

 Standard 144a1 Method 4Q~2T1

The VOM content of. coatings shall

 be determined

 by Method

24,

 40 CFR

Part 60, Appendix

A,

 incorporated

 by reference in Section 215.105,

except for glues and adhesive coatings, two component reactive

coatings forming volatile reaction products, coatings requiring

energy other than heat to

 initiate curing,

 and coatings requiring

high temperature catalysis

 for curing.

 For printing

 inks,

the

volatile organic material content shall

 be determined

 by Method 24A,

40

 CFR Part 60, Appendix

A,

 incorporated

 by reference

 in Section

215.105.

 Any alternate test method must be approved by the Agency,

which

 shall

 consider data comparing the performance of the proposed

alternative

 to the performance

of

 the. approved test method(s).

If

the Agency determines

 that such data demonstrates that

 the proposed

alternative will achieve results equivalent

 to the approved test

method(s),

 the Agency shall

 approve the proposed alternative.

109—487

—4~—

b)

 Transfer efficiency shall

 be determined

by

 a method, procedure or

standard approved

 by the USEPA,

 under the applicable new source

performance standard or until

 such time as USEPA has approved and

published such a method, procedure or standard, by any appropriate

method, procedure or standard approved

 by the Agency.

Section 215.241

 External Floating Roofs

The requirements of subsection 215.124(a)

 shall

 not apply to any stationary

storage tank equipped with an external floating roof:

a)

 Exempted under Section 215.123(a)(2) through

 (a)(6);

b)

 Of welded construction equipped with a metallic-type shoe seal having

a secondary seal from the top of the shoe seal to the tank wall

(shoe-mounted secondary seal);

c)

 Of welded construction equipped with a metallic type shoe

 seal,

a

liquid-mounted foam seal,

 a liquid-mounted liquid—filled—type seal,

or other closure device of equivalent control efficiency

 approved by

the Agency

 in which

 a petroleum liquid with

 a true vapor pressure

less than 27.6 kPa (4.0 psia)

 at 294.3°K(70°F)is stored;

or

d)

 Used

 to store crude

 oil with a pour point

 of 50°For higher as

determined

 by ASTM Standard 097-66 incorporated by reference in

Section 215.105.

Section 215.404

 Testing and Monitoring

 (Repealed)

a3

 Upon a reasenab3e request of the Agency1 the owner or operator of

a

vo3at4e organ4c mater4al source subject

 to th4s Subpart sha3 at h4s

own expense demonstrate eomp34ance by methods

 or procedures

 approved

by the AgeneyT

b3

 A person p3ann4ng to conduct

 a vo4at4e organ4e mater4a~em4ss4ons

test to demonstrate comp4anee w4th th4s Subpart sha3

 not4fy the

Agency of that 4nteat

not

 ess than 30 days before the p4anned

4n4t4at4on

 of the tests

 so the Agency may observe the testT

Section 215.409

 Testing Methods for Volatile Organic Material Content

The volatile organic material content

 of fountain solution and all coatings

shall

be

 determined

 by Method 24,

 40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

 incorporated by

reference

 in Section 215.105

 The volatile organic material content

of

printing inks shall

 be determined

 by Method 24A, 40 CFR Part

 60, Appendix

A,

incorporated by reference

 in Section 215.105.

 Any alternate test method must

be approved

 by the Agency, which shall consider data comparing the performance

of the proposed alternative

 to the performance of the approved test

method(s).

 If the Agency determines that such data demonstrates that the

proposed alternative will achieve results equivalent

 to the approved test

method(s),

 the Agency shall

 approve the proposed alternative.

109—488

-43-

Section 215.410

 Emissions Testing

~

 Any tests of volatile organic material emissions,

 including tests

conducted to determine control equipment efficiency or control

 device

destruction efficiency,

 shall

 be conducted in accordance with the

methods and procedures specified

 in Section 215.102.

p1

 Upon a reasonable request by the Agency,

 the owner or operator

of

a

volatile organic material emission source required to comply with the

limits

of

 this Subpart shall

 conduct emissions testing,

 at his own

expense, to demonstrate

 compliance.

cI

 A person planning to conduct

 a volatile organic material emissions

test to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart shall

 notify the

Agency of

 that intent not

 less than 30 days before the planned

initiation of the tests

so

 the Agency may observe the

 test.

Section 215.421

 General Requirements

~1

 The owner

 or operator of a plant which

 has more than 1,500 components

in gas

 or light

 liquid service, which components

 are used to

manufacture the synthetic organic chemicals or polymers

 listed

in

Appendix 0, shall

 conduct

 leak inspection and repair programs

in

accordance with this Subpart for that equ4pment component containing

 more than 10 percent volatile organic material as determined by ASTM

method E-260,

 E-168,

 and E-169,

 incorporated by reference in Section

215.105.

 A component sha43

 be cons4dered to be

 eak4ng

 4f the

vo3at43e organ4c mater4al concentrat4on exceeds 101009 ppm when

measured

at

 a d4stanee of 0 cm from the eomponentT

 The provisions of

this Subpart are not applicable

 if the products

 listed

 in Appendix 0

are made from natural fatty acids for the production

 of hexadecyl

alcohol.

p1

A

 component shall

 be considered

to

 be leaking

 if the volatile organic

material

 concentration exceeds 10,000 ppm when measured at

 a distance

of 0 cm from the component as determined

 by Method

21,

 40 CFR 60,

Appendix

A,

 incorporated

 by reference

 in Section 215.105.

Section 215.445

 Leaks:

 General

 Requirements

~

 The owner or operator of

 a petroleum refinery shall:

a311 Develop

 a monitoring program plan consistent with the provisions

of Section 215.446;

b3fl

Conduct

 a monitoring program consistent with the provisions of

Section 215.447;

e3~

Conduct

 all tests for

 leaks

 in accordance with Method 21,

 40 CFR

60, Appendix A,

 incorporated by reference

 in Section 215.105.

109—480

—44—

c3~jRecord

all

 leaking components which have a volatile organic

material concentration exceeding 10,000 ppm consistent with the

provisions of Section 215.448;

d3~jIdentify each component consistent with the monitoring program

plan submitted pursuant to Section 215.446;

e3~Repair and retest the leaking components

 as soon as possible

within 22 days after the leak is found, but no

 later than June

1

for the purposes of Section 215.447(a)(1), unless the leaking

components cannot be repaired until

 the unit is shut down for

turnaround;

and

f3fl

Report

 to the Agency consistent with the provisions of Section

215.449.

p1

 A component shall

 be considered

to

be

 leaking

if

 the volatile organic

material concentration exceeds

 10,000 ppm when measured

at

 a distance

of

 0 cm from the component as determined

 by Method

21,

 40 CFR 60,

Appendix

 A, incorporated by reference

 in Section 215.105.

Section 215.464

 Emissions Testing

 and Monitoring

a3

 Upon

 a request of the Agency1 the owner or operator of

 a volati3e

 organic mater4a~source Fequ3red to

 eomp4y with Sections 245T4?4

through 245T4?4 sha~41at

 his own expense1 demonstrate comp4iance

by

methods or procedures approved by the Agency~

A person pianning

 to conduct

 a ve3at4~eorganic materia

 emission

test sha4L~notify the Agency of

 the intent

 to test not 3ess than 39

days before the panned initiation

 of the test so the Agency may at

its option observe the testT

~

 Any tests of volatile organic material emissions, including tests

conducted to determine control equipment efficiency or control device

destruction efficiency,

 shall

 be conducted in accordance with the

methods

 and procedures specified in Section 215. 102.

p1

 Upon a reasonable request by the Agency,

 the owner or operator of

a

volatile organic material

 emission source required to comply with a

limit

 of Sections 215.461 through 215.464 shall

 conduct emissions

testing,

 at such person’s own expense,

 to demonstrate compliance.

g~

 A person planning to conduct

 a volatile organic material

 emission

test to demonstrate compliance

 shall

 notify the Agency

 of that intent

not

 less than 30 days before the planned initiation

 of the

 tests

so

the Agency may observe the test.

Section 215.467

 Testing Methods for Volatile Organic Material Content

The volatile organic material content for all VOM emitting materials except

printing inks shall

 be determined

 by Method

 24, 40 CFR 60, Appendix

A,

109—490

-45—

incorporated

 by reference

 in Section 215.105.

 Any alternate test method must

be approved by the Agency, which shall consider data comparing the performance

of the proposed alternative

 to the performance of the approved test

method(s).

If

 the Agency determines that such data demonstrates that the

proposed alternative will achieve results equivalent to the approved test

method(s),

 the Agency shall

 approve the proposed alternative.

Section 215.582 Bulk Gasoline Terminals

a)

 No person may shall cause or allow the transfer of gasoline into any

delivery vessel from any bulk gasoline terminal unless:

1)

 The bulk gasoline terminal

 is equipped with a vapor control

system that limits emission

 of volatile organic material to 80

mg/i (0.00067 lbs/gal)

 of gasoline loaded;

2)

 The vapor control system

 is operating and all vapors displaced

in the loading of gasoline

 to the delivery vessel

 are vented

only to the vapor control

 system;

3)

 There

 is no liquid drainage from the loading device when it

is

not in use;

4)

 All loading and vapor return

 lines are equipped with fittings

which are vapor tight;

and

5)

 The delivery vessel displays the appropriate sticker pursuant to

the requirements of Section 215.584(b)

or

 (d); or,

if

the

terminal

 is driver-loaded,

 the terminal owner or operator shall

be deemed to

be

 in compliance with this section when terminal

access authorization

 is limited to those owners and/or operators

of delivery vessels who have provided

 a current certification as

required by Section 215.584(c)(3).

b).

 gmissions of organic materia3 from buik gaso4ine termina3s sha43 be

determined

 by the procedure described in ~PA—45Q/2—77—Q261

 Appendix

A1

 as revised from time to

 time1 or by any other equiva3ent procedure

approved by the Agency~

p1c3 Bulk gasoline terminals were required

 to take certain actions

to

achieve compliance which are summarized

 in Appendix

C.

g~d3The operator of

 a bulk gasoline terminal

 shall:

1)

 Operate the terminal vapor collection system and gasoline

loading equipment

in

 a manner that prevents:

A)

 Gauge pressure from exceedi~ng18 in~hesof water and vacuum

from exceeding 6

 inches of water

 as measured as close as

possible

 to the vapor hose connection;

and

109—49

1

-46-

B)

 A reading equal to or greater than

 100 percent of the lower

explosive limit

 (LEL measured as propane) when tested

in

accordance with the procedure described in EPA 450/2—78-051

Appendix B;

and

C)

 Avoidable leaks

of

 liquid during loading or unloading

operations.

2)

 Provide a pressure tap or equivalent on the terminal vapor

collection system

 in order

to

 allow the determination of

compliance with 215.582(d)(1)(A);

and

3)

 Within

 15 business days after discovery of

 the leak by the

owner,

 operator, or the Agency, repair and retest

 a vapor

collection

 system which exceeds the

 limits of subsection

(d)(1)(A) or

 (B).

Section 215.584

 Gasoline Delivery Vessels

a)

 Any delivery vessel equipped for vapor control

 by use of vapor

collection equipment:

1)

 Shall

 have

 a vapor space connection that

 is equipped with.

fittings which are vapor tight;

2)

 Shall

 have

 its hatches closed

at

all

 times during

 loading or

unloading operations, unless

 a top

 loading vapor recovery system

is used;

3)

 Shall

 not internally exceed

 a gauge pressure of

 18 inches of

water or a vacuum of 6

 inches of water;

4)

 Shall

 be designed and maintained

to

 be vapor tight

at

 all times

during normal operations;

5)

 Shall

 not be refilled

in

 Illinois at ther than:

A)

 A bulk gasoline terminal that complies with the

requirements of Section 215.582 or

B)

 A bulk gasoline plant that complies with the requirements

of Section 215.581(b)(1) and

 (2).

6.

 Shall

 be tested

 annually

 in accordance with the pressure—vacuum

test procedure described

 in EPA 45Q/2-3~-954Appendix AT

 Method

27,

 40 CFR 60, Appendix

A,

 incorporated

 by reference

 in Section

215.105.

 Each vessel must be repaired and retested with

15

business days after discovery of the

 leak by the owner,

operator, or the Agency, when

 it fails to sustain:

A)

 A pressure drop of no more than three inches

 of water

in

five minutes; and

109—492

-47—

B)

 A vacuum drop of

 no more than three

 inches of water

 in five

minutes.

b)

 Any delivery vessel meeting the requirements of Subsection

(a)

 shall

have a sticker affixed to the tank adjacent

 to the tank

manufacturer’s data plate which contains the tester’s name,

 the tank

identification number and the date of the test.

 The sticker shall

be

in

 a form prescribed

 by the Agency,

and

 shall

 be displayed no

 later

than December

31,

 1987.

c)

 The owner

 or operator of a delivery vessel

 shall:

1)

 Maintain copies of

 any test required under Subsection

 (a)(6)

for

a period

of

 3 years;

2)

 Provide copies of

 these tests to the Agency upon request; and

3)

 Provide annual

 test result certification to bulk gasoline plants

and terminals where the delivery vessel

 is loaded.

d)

 Any delivery vessel which has undergone and passed a test

 in another

state which has a USEPA—approved leak testing and certification

program will satisfy the requirements of Subsection (a).

 Delivery

vessels must display

 a sticker, decal

 or stencil approved

 by the

state where tested or comply with the requirements of Subsection

(b).

All

 such stickers, decals or stencils

 shall

 be displayed no

later than December 31,

 1987.

Section 215.585

 Gasoline Volatility Standards

a)

 No person shall

 sell,

 offer for

 sale,

 dispense,

 supply, offer for

supply,

 or transport for use in Illinois gasoline whose

 Reid vapor

pressure exceeds the applicable limitations

 set forth

 in subsections

(b)

and

 (c) during the regulatory control periods, which

 shall

be

July

1

 to August

 31 for retail outlets, wholesale purchaser-consumer

facilities,

 and all other facilities.

b)

 The Reid vapor pressure

 of gasoline,

 a measure of

 its volatility,

shall

 not exceed 9.5 psi

 (65.5 kPa) during the regulatory control

period

in

 1990 and each year thereafter.

c)

 The Reid vapor

 pressure of ethanol

 blend gasolines

 shall

 not exceed

the limitations for gasoline set forth

 in subsection

(b)

 by more than

1.0 psi

 (6.9 kPa).

 Notwithstanding this limitation, blenders of

ethanol blend gasolines whose Reid vapor pressure

 is less than 1.0

psi

 above the base stock gasoline immediately after blending with

ethanol

 are prohibited

 from adding bu.tane or any product that will

increase the Reid vapor pressure

of

 the blended gasoline.

d)

All

 sampling of gasoline required pursuant

 to the provisions of this

Section shall

 be conducted by one or more of the following approved

109—493

-48-

methods or procedures which are incorporated

 by reference in Section

215.105.

I.)

 For manual

 sampling, ASTM 04057;

2)

 For automatic sampling, ASTM 04177;

3)

 Sampling Procedures for Fuel Volatility, 40 CFR 80 Appendix

0.

e)

 The Reid vapor pressure of gasoline

 shall

 be measured

 in accordance

with either test method ASTM 0323 or in the case of gasoiine-

oxygenate b3ends which contains water—extractab4e oxygenates1

a

modification of ASTM D323 known as the ‘dry method”

 as set forth

in

40 CFR

 80., Appendix

E,

 incorporated

 by reference in Section

215.105.

 For gasoline

-

 oxygenate blends which contain water-

extractable oxygenates, the Reid vapor pressure shall

 be measured

using the dry method

 test.

f)

 The ethanol content

 of ethanol blend gasolines shall

 be determined

by

use of one of

 the approved testing methodologies specified

 in 40 CFR

80, Appendix

F,

 incorporated by reference in Section 215.105.

g)

 Any alternate to the sampling or testing methods or procedures

contained in subsections

 (d),

 (e), and

 (f) must be approved

by

the

Agency, which shall

 consider data comparing the performance of

the

proposed alternative to the performance

 of one or more approved test

methods or procedures.

 Such data shall

 accompany any request for

Agency approval of an alternate test procedure.

If

 the Agency

determines that such data demonstrates that

 the proposed alternative

will achieve results equivalent to the approved test methods or

procedures,

 the Agency shall approve the proposed alternative.

h)

 Each refiner or supplier that distributes gasoline or ethanol blends

shall:

1)

 During the regulatory control

 period, document and e3ear3y

designate state that the Reid vapor pressure

of

all

 gasoline or

ethanol

 blends leaving the refinery or distribution facility for

use

in

 Illinois complies with the

 Reid vapor pressure

limitations set forth

 in Section 215.585(b) and

 (c).

Any

facility receiving this gasoline shall

 be provided with

 a copy

of

 the accompanying document specifying the Reid vapor pressure

an invoice,

 bill of lading,

 or other documentation used in

normal business practice stating that the Reid vapor pressure

of

the gasoline complies with the State Reid vapor pressure

standard.

2)

 Maintain records for a period

 of two one years on the

 Reid vapor

pressure, quantity shipped and date of delivery

 of any gasoline

or ethanol

 blends leaving the refinery or distribution facility

for use

in

 Illinois.

 The Agency shall

 be provided with copies

of such records

 if requested.

109—494

-49-

Section 215.586

 Emissions Testing

~

 Any tests

 of organic material emissions from bulk gasoline terminals,

including tests conducted to determine control equipment efficiency

or control device destruction

 efficiency, shall

 be conducted in

accordance with the Test Methods and Procedures for the Standards of

Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals,

40

 CFR 60.503, incorporated

by reference

 in Section 215.105.

 Any alternate test method must be

approved by the Agency, which shall

 consider data comparing the

performance

 of the proposed alternative

 to the performance of the

approved test method(s).

 If the Agency determines

 that such data

demonstrates that the proposed alternative will achieve results

equivalent

 to the approved test method(s),

 the Agency

 shall

 approve

the proposed alternative.

p1

 Upon a reasonable request

 by the Agency, the owner or operator of

a

volatile organic material emission source subject

to

 this Subpart

shall

 conduct emissions testing, at

 such person’s own expense, to

demonstrate compliance.

~

 A person planning to conduct an organic material emissions test to

demonstrate

 compliance with this Subpart shall

 notify the Agency

of

that intent not less than 30 days before the planned initiation of

the tests

 so the Agency may observe the test.

Section 215.601

 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners

The owner or operator

of

 a dry cleaning facility which uses perchloroethylene

shall:

a)

 Vent the entire dryer exhaust through

 a properly designed and

functioning carbon adsorption system or equally effective control

device; and

b)

 Emit no more than 100 ppmv of volatile organic material from the

dryer control device before dilution, or achieve

 a 90 percent average

reduction before dilution;

and

c)

 Immediately repair

 all components

 found

 to be

 leaking

 liquid volatile

organic material; and

d)

 Cook or treat

 all diatomaceous earth filters

 so that

 the residue

contains

25

 kg (55 lb) or

 less of volatile organic material per 100

kg

 (220

lb)

 of wet waste material;

and

e)

 Reduce the volatile organic material from all solvent

 stills

 to 60 kg

(132

 lb) or

 less per

 100 kg

 (220

 lb)..of wet waste material;

and

f)

 Drain

 all filtration cartridges

in

 the filter housing or other sealed

container for at least

 24 hours before discarding

 the cartridges;

and

109—495

g)

 Dry all drained filtration cartridges

 in equipment connected to a

carbon absorption system meeting the requirements of subsections

(a)

and

 (b) or an emission reduction system or

in

 a manner that will

eliminate emission of

 volatile organic material to the atmosphere.

Section 215.603

 Testing and Monitoring Leaks

a3

 Compl~4ancewith Section 215T6Q~a3l f

and

~g3

sha43

 be determined

by

 a visua’

 inspection.j

b3

 Comp3iance with Section 245~694~c3

 The presence of

 leaks shall

be

determined for purposes

 of Section 215.601 ~gj by

 a visual

 inspection

of the following:

 hose connections, unions, couplings and valves;

machine door gaskets and seatings; filter head gasket and seating;

pumps; base tanks and storage containers; water separators; filter

sludge recovery;

 distillation unit;

 diverter valves; saturated lint

 from lint baskets; and cartridge filters~and

?3

 Gomp4iance with Section 245T?0~b31~d3and ~e3 sha43

 be determined

by methods

 or procedures approved by the Agency.

Section 215.614

 Testing Method for Volatile Organic Material Content of

Wastes

The volatile organic material content

 of wastes

 shall

 be determined

by

Method 24, 40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

 incorporated by reference in Section

215.105.

 Any alternate test method must be approved

 by the Agency, which

shall consider data comparing the performance

 of the proposed alternative to

the performance of the approved test method(s).

 If the Agency determines that

such data demonstrates that the proposed alternative will achieve results

equivalent

 to the approved test method(s),

 the Agency shall

 approve the

proposed alternative.

Section 215.615

 Emissions Testing

~

 Any tests of volatile organic material emissions, including tests

conducted to determine control equipment efficiency or control device

destruction efficiency,

 shall

 be conducted

 in accordance with the

methods

 and procedures specified

 in Section 215.102.

p1

 Upon

 a reasonable request by the Agency, the owner or operator of

a

volatile organic material emissions source subject to this Subpart

shall conduct emissions testing, at such person’s own expense,

to

demonstrate compliance.

~

 A person planning

 to conduct

 a volatile organic material emissions

test to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart shall

 notify the

Agency

 of that intent not less than 30 days before the planned

initiation of the

 tests

 so the Agency may observe the test.

Section 215.886

 Emissions Testing and Monitoring

109—496

—51—

a3

 Upon a reasonab~erequest of the Agency1 the owner or operator of a

po3ystyrene p3ant subject to this Subpart sha

 at his

QWR

 expense

demonstrate comp34ance by use of the fe3owing methed

 4Q G~R6Q1

Appendix A1 Method 26

-

 Detecminat4on of Tota3 Caseous Non-Methane

Qrgani? gm4ssions as Carbon ~4984~

 The incocporat4on by reference

contains no

 ater amendments

or

editionsT

b~4 A person p3anning to conduct a

test to demonstrate eomp3ianee

Agency of that intent not 3ess

4nitiation of the tests

 so the

vo4at4e organic materia4 emissions

with this ~ubpactsha43 notify the

than

 3Q days before the p3anned

agency may observe the testy

Any tests of volatile organic material emissions, including tests

conducted to determine control equipment efficiency or control device

 destruction efficiency,

 shall

 be conducted

 in accordance with the

methods and procedures specified in Section 215.102.

p1

 Upon

 a reasonable request by

polystyrene plant subject

to

testing, at his own expense,

the Agency, the owner or operator of

this Subpart shall conduct emissions

to demonstrate compliance.

a

cJ

 A person planning to conduct a volatile organic material emissions

test

to

demonstrate

compliance

with

this

 Subpart shall

 notify the

Agency of that intent not less than 30 days before the planned

initiation

of

the

tests

so

the

Agency

may

observe

the

test.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollutipn Control

 Board,

 hereby

certif

 that the above Order was adopted on the

7c~’

~

day

of 7

~

,

 1990 by

 a vote of

 -7--

C

.

ii

~777,

~

Dorothy

M.

Gi~Iin, Clerk

Illinois

PoUutian

Control

Board

109—497

Back to top