ILLIi~OISiCLLUTIOi~COi~TR~
L
HOARD
August
6,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL
)
R82-14
EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
SOURCES:
RACT
III
PROPOSED RULE
SECOND NOTICE
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B.
Forcade):
This matter comes
before the Board
as part
of a regulatory
proposal initially filed
by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”)
on June
3U, l9~2, for
the control
of organic
material emissions from selected industrial categories and
generic sources.
The particular proposal that
is the subject
of
today’s Opinion and Order regulates organic material emissions
from one
of these
industrial
categories,
rieatset web offset
lithographic printing.
Thirty—one hearings have been held,
to
date,
regarding
the entire R82—14 regulatory proposal.
A number
of these hearings have specifically addressed the heatset web
offset lithographic printing category.
An economic
impact study
(EcIS) was prepared specifically addressing this category
(Ex.
71).
On August
10 and 22,
1984,
the
Board proposed regulatory
language and
a supporting opinion,
respectively,
for First Notice
(hereinafter,
the first First Notice).
The first First Notice
contained elements
of the original Agency proposal,
as well
as
language and modifications submitted
by the Printing Industry of
Illinois
(P11).
Public comments received during the
first First
Notice period cited many problems with the proposed rule and P11
specifically requested
an additional hearing
(P.C.
54,
57
&
62).
On May 30, 1985,
the Board, noting the confusion and
controversy associated with this category,
acknowledged
that the
first First Notice rule needed revision and that the existing
record needed
to
be supplemented.
The Board proposed
a second
First Notice
(hereinafter
the second First Notice)
for the
purpose of generating comments and criticisms and authorized
additional hearings.
Hearings solely addressing
the heatset web offset category
were held
on April
3. and
2,
1986,
in Chicago.
On September
22,
1986,
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR)
filed
a letter indicating
that further economic impact assessment would
not be undertaken by DENR for
this particular category of rules,
as a heatäet web offset EcIS was already
a part of the Board’s
record
(P.C.
87).
Final comments were received through September
29,
1986.
80—20 1
—2—
On April
30,
1907,
the Board proposed regulatory language
for
a third
First Notice
(hereinafter,
the third First Notice),
which was published
at
11
111. Reg.
10780,
June 12,
1967.
The
statutory 45—day comment period ended on July
27,
1987.
The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
filea comments
on July
23,
1987
(P.C.
111).
The Agency filed first notice comments,
which were mailed July 27, 1987
(P.C.
112).
The Administrative
Code Unit
of the Secretary of State’s Office also filed comments
regarding non-substantive format changes.
Those format changes
have been incorporated
in the Second Notice Order.
A detailed discussion
of the evidence and Board resolution
of the
issues
is provided
in the April
30,
1987,
Opinion in this
matter
and will not
be repeated here.
The Board will
respond
to
issues raised
i-n
the two substantive comments
received during
First Notice.
Both the Agency and USEPA raised essentially
the
same substantive issues
in the public comments.
First,
the
commenters raised
a concern that proposed Section
2l5.408(a)(l),
which required
the use
of an
incinerator connected
to the dryer
stack,
contains
no cap or upper
limit
on the percentage of
VOM
in
the fountain solution.
The commenters recommend
a
12
percent
cap.
Second, th~commenters maintain that the cap
for fountain
solution VCM
in proposed Section 2l5.408(a)(2) should be seven
percent rather
than the proposed eight percent.
The Agency asserts
that the Board’s proposed Section
2l5.408(a)(l) does not provide
“a high level of control” absent
a
cap of
12 percent on fountain solution VOM when an afterburner
is
used.
The Board
is
at
a loss to follow
the logic of this
position
in light of
the Agency’s own persuasive evidence
regarding the quantity of fountain solution VOM that
is emitted
in the press room and dryer.
The Agency’s Technical Support
Document, Exhibit
28,
states that
75
to 99.2 percent of the
fountain solution VOM emissions occur
in the dryer.
This exhibit
effectively refutes
the
50 percent estimate
in the terminated or
withdrawn draft CTG for this catego~y(Ex.
29(c)).
Using
the
Agency’s estimate,
the Board made estimated calculations of
the
quantity of VOM emissions controlled by the two control
alternatives
in the proposed
rule.
The incinerator control
option
(with no fountain solution cap)
resulted
in a comparable,
but generally higher,
level of
control than
the fountain solution
limitation/condenser option
(R82—l4,
RACT III, April
30,
1987,
Opinion, pp.
27—29).
Far from not providing
a
“high level
of
control,” the incinerator option provides the highest level of
control due
to
the high capture efficiency provided
by the use
of
a dryer directly connected
to a high destruction efficiency
incinerator.
The Board,
in its third First Notice Opinion,
found
that the use of
a high efficiency incinerator without any cap on
fountain solution VOM
is RACT since pressroom emissions do not
represent
a large portion of total fountain solution VOM
emissions.
The Agency cites
no credible evidence
in support of
a
12 percent cap,
either
in terms of print quality feasibility or
80—202
—3—
in terms of any significant
impact on emissions.
The ~gency
cites
its own proposal and the terminated draft CTG as authority
and requests that the Board disregard
the Agency’s own Exhibit
28
(P.C.
112,
pp.
3—4).
Both the Agency and USEPA assert
that
nothing
in the record
before
the Board supports eliminating
the
12 percent proposal.
The Agency and the USEPA misperceive
the nature of the regulatory
decision before the Board.
Generally, proponents of regulatory
language must create
a record adequate
to support their advocated
position.
There
is no presumption of correctness afforded
to an
Agency proposal
(or
to any proposal).
The Board must make a
decision based solely on the record before
it.
The Board must
weigh the
relative merits and credibility of conflicting
evidence.
In this circumstance,
the Board
found that
the
Agency’s evidence regarding the small quantity of pressroom
emissions to
be more credible and persuasive than the
50
percent
figure
in
tne terminated draft
CTC.
The Agency,
in
its comments,
states that Exhibit
26 should not control because
it
is based on
calculations rather
than measurement.
However,
a review of the
terminated draft CTG shows that the
50 percent figure
is also
based on calculation
rather
than measurement
(Ex.
29e,
pp.
2—16,
Appendix A).
In
fact,
Exhibit
28
is essentially a reworking
of
Exhibit
29e, Appendix
A.
However,
the Agency corrected certain
inaccurate assumptions made
by USEPA.
Implicit
in both
the Agency’s and USEPA’s comments
is the
view that,
somehow,
the terminated draft CTG should
be accorded
greater weight
than any other evidence developed
in this
regulatory
record.
This
raises two sub—issues.
The first issue
is the value
of
the terminated draft CTG
as evidence
in this
proceeding.
The second
issue
is the legal
import of the
terminated draft
CTG
in light
of the
federal policy regarding
RACT
technical guidance.
The Board believes
that it
is important
to briefly review
the history of the terminated heatset web
offset draft CTG.
While
the wisdom and legal effect of the
USEPA’s policy of providing nearly irrebuttable RACT “guidance”
to the states through final CTG5 rather than federal rulemaking
can be debated,
the Board believes that federal technical support
and guidance for the heatset web offset category have been
pathetically deficient.
The document was issued
in draft form
in
1981.
After tremendous technical criticism,
the draft document
was terminated
or withdrawn by letter
(Ex.
24o).
Since
that
time, the command
from USEPA
to regulate heatset web offset
sources has been clear
but the technical guidance has not.
USEPA
has attempted
to “have
its cake and eat it too.”
While unwilling
to stand behind
its own flawed technical guidance, USEPA expects
that guidance
to be slavishly followed and has made
a veiled
threat to disapprove
the Board’s latest proposed heatset web
offset rule
to the extent that
it deviates from the terminated
draft CTG
(P.C.
111).
Both
in the letter
terminating
the draft
CTG and
in the latest comment
to the Board,
the USEPA continues
80—203
—4—
to trumpet
the merits of
the
terminated draft CIG
(Ex.
24u,
P.C.
Ill).
Such
a position
is untenable.
Because
of the deficiencies
in USEPA technical guidance for
this category,
the Agency and the Board spent
a great deal of
time, effort and money
to develop
a sufficient factual record
for
reasoned rulemaking.
The Board believes that
it has proposed a
good rule
that represents RACT and
is well supported by the
record.
The Agency has helped
to fill the technical vacuum left
by USEPA and has developed and submitted many original and well
documented exhibits,
such
as Exhibit 28,
in this proceeding.
The
Agency’s attempt
to disavow
its own better evidence
in
favor
of
the now six year old,
technically flawed,
terminated draft CTG
strains credibility.
In the final analysis,
the Board must make an
independent
determination based solely on the record.
It
is the Board’s duty
to weigh evidence and regulate based
on
the evidentiary record.
This
is the legal context
in which
our decisions must be made and
our decisions are reviewed
by courts.
The Board finds
that there
is nothing
in the record supporting
a cap of
12 percent.
This
limitation
is arbitrary.
The Agency has only cited
its own
proposal,
which
is
not factual evidence and
the terminated draft
CTG.
The
basis,
in the terminated
draft
CTG,
for the
12 percent
cap
is non existent.
It
is stated as
a conclusion
in Chapter 4.0
with
no factual support
or citation.
The Board’s proposed rule,
in contrast,
is supported by
a
number
of factual findings based
on the record.
First,
the
presumed status quo of fountain solution VOM
is
in the range of
15
to
25 percent.
On an industry—wide
basis
this has been
decreasing
in recent years
(R.
3956,
testimony of John Reed).
Consequently, pressroom emissions will also decrease.
The best
evidence shows
that from 75
to 99.2
of the
fountain solution
VOMs are emitted
in the drying process,
rather than the pressroom
(Ex.
28).
An incinerator, directly àonnected to the dryer stack,
ensures extremely high capture
(R.
3941,
testimony of John
Reed
regarding 100
capture of dryer
emissions).
The Board’s
estimated calculations of emissions and emission controls shows
that the
incinerator option
(without a fountain solution cap)
results
in
the highest level
of control
of the options provided
(R82—14,
RACT III, April
30,
1987, Opinion, pp.
27—29),
The
Agency and USEPA present
no factual basis for their assertion
that substantial pressroom emissions will occur.
The appropriate
standard
is not whether
there
is evidence
to support
“elimination” of the 12 percent cap but whether there
is any
evidence
to support such a cap.
~e find that there
is not.
Consequently, imposition of such a number would
be arbitrary and
capricious on the part
of this Board.
The second area addressed by
the cominenters
is the eight
percent fountain solution
VOM
cap specified
in proposed Section
80—204
—5—
2l5.4ü~(a)(2).
both
trie Agency and USEPA contend
that the
fountain solution VOM cap should
be seven percent.
Once again,
the source
of
this
figure
is tne Agency’s proposal and the
terminated draft CTG
(Ex.
29(c)).
The Agency contends that the
“only
thing concrete”
in the
record
is
a
letter from Terry Dwyer
of Roberts and Porter,
a supplier
of fountain solution additives,
to John Reed
(Ex. 106(b)).
That letter
indicates that fountain
solution isopropyl alcohol
(IPA)
can be
reduced to five percent
in most cases,
if used
in combination with IPA substitutes.
The
printing industry does not dispute this
fact.
However,
the
record indicates that all
of
the IPA substitutes
are themselves
VOMs
(R. 4001—4006,
4064).
Additionally,
the record indicates
that five percent IPA is feasible
for
the majority of printers
only
if
IPA substitutes are permitted to the level
of three
percent.
This
VON
level ensures
that the rule will
be
technically feasible for
the entire Illinois industrial
category,
which utilizes numerous different dampening systems
and produces
a variety of different products on a job—shop basis
(R. 4046—
4047,
4155—4156).
The Dwyer letter notes
that there are
limitations
to the amount of IPA reductions technically possible
for certain
types
of printing operations.
The Dwyer letter makes
no attempt
to quantify
the number
of presses or press runs that
can eliminate or reduce IPA below
five percent.
The Board
finds
that the Dwyer
letter does not
support the Agency’s proposition
that
seven percent
is
technically feasible
for the industry as
a
whole.
The Dwyer
letter,
when appropriately limited by
its own
terms
and by the sworn testimony
in the record,
is consistent
with the proposed eight percent
cap.
The Agency also cites
the testimony
of Gerry Bender
of
R.R.
Donnelly
& Sons
as somehow supporting
a cap of
seven percent.
On
page six of Public Comment
No.
112, the Agency quotes Mr.
Bender’s
testimony that between
1.6 percent and 3.1 percent non-
IPA substitutes
needs
to be added
if
the
IPA content
is reduced
to the lowest possible level
of five.percent.
The Agency states
that Mr. Bender’s testimony “supports seven percent
as
a cut off,
as well as eight percent, and the Agency believes that the Board
should adopt
the lowest technically feasible numbers.”
The
Agency then concludes with the request that “the limit for VON
content of fountain solution when using
a condenser
be changed
from eight percent
to seven percent as the record supports the
seven percent limit.”
If Mr. Bender’s testimony
is going
to be
used as
the support for
a VOM limitation which applies to
all
sources within
this industrial category,
then
it
is logical
to
use the upper
limit of
eight percent which
is technically
feasible
for
all affected
sources.
This, then, would
represent
the “lowest technically feasible number”,
rather than the seven
percent that the Agency believes
it
represents..
Mr. Bender’s
testimony describes a technically feasible range
for diverse
dampening systems and products.
80—205
—6—
Tne board
finds that
the record supports eight percent as
a
technically
feasible limitation.
As discussed previously,
the
Agency’s own proposal
and the terminated draft CTG provide no
real basis
for
the seven percent figure.
Neither the USEPA or the Agency have presented any
information or analysis regarding emissions in support of their
position
on the fountain solution VON content.
The Agency does
make certain unsupported assertions that “significant” pressroom
emissions will result absent adoption of
tighter limitations.
It
is axiomatic that fewer emissions will occur
if tighter
limitations
are imposed.
This,
of course,
totally ignores the
issue
of whether
the limitations
are technically feasible
or
not.
While
the Board
has found that the record does not support
the limitations-advocated by the Agency and USEPA,
it
is also
apparent that the additional emission reductions contemplated are
not significant.
Using essentially the same assumptions
in the
emission reduction estimates
in the Board’s April
30,
1967,
Opinion in this matter,
the Board has calculated the overall VON
removal efficiency increases
at issue.
First,
regarding
the
imposition of
a
12 percent cap when an afterburner
is utilized,
the estimated overall VOf~removal efficiency increases 5.2
percentage points.
The imposition
of
a seven percent limitation
rather
than eight percent when
a condenser
is used results
in
an
estimated overall VOF4 removal efficiency
increase of 4.2
percentage points.
Regarding
the legal import
of
the level
of control
specified
in the terminated draft CTG,
the Board found
on April
30,
1987,
and finds again
today,
that this document does not define RACT
for
this industrial category and that Illinois
is not required
to
regulate this category by virtue
of this document
(R82—l4,
RACT
III, April
30,
1987, Opinion,
pp.
3—5,
24).
At least at one
time,
even the Agency was
in agreement with this position
(R.
3984).
The reason that this Board chose
to regulate
is because
there
are existing major stationary
~ources in non—attainment
planning areas.
Therefore, under
the Clean Air Act,
we must
regulate.
There
is
no
PACT
“presumption” created by the
terminated draft CTG.
Until USEPA stands behind the facts and
conclusions
in the
terminated draft CTG by formally and finally
adopting
it, this Board cannot accept
the specified levels of
control
as the presumptive
PACT
norm.
ORDER
The Board proposes the following amendments
for Second
Notice review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
80—206
—7—
TIILE
35:
ENVIRONMEi~Thi4PRGTECTIOH
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
1:
~OLLUTIOL’4CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
c:
EMISSION STANDARDS AND
LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONAR~SOURCES
PART 215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART
P:
PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
Section
215.401
Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing
215.402
Exemptions
215.403
Appl-icability o~f Subpart K
215.404
Testing and Monitoring
215.405
Compliance Dates
and Geographical Areas
215.406
Alternative Compliance Plan
215.407
Compliance Plan
215.408
Heatset ~eb Offset Lithographic Printing
Section 215.405
Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas
a)
Except as otherwise stated
in subsection
(b), every
owner
or operator of
an emission source subject to:
th4s
Sub~e~tshe~ eomp~y
wtth
~s
sartdaL’ds
ar~
~t±e~ts
by
Beeerrtbe~ 3~
~98~-~-
1)
Section
215.401
shall
comply
with
its
standards
and
limitations
by December
31,
1983;
and
2)
Section
215.408
shall
comply
with
its
standards
and
limitations by December
31,
1987.
b)
If an emission source subject to Section 215.401
is not
located
in one of
the count~ieslisted
below and
is also
not located
in any county contiguous thereto,
the owner
or operator of the emission source shall comply with the
requirements of this Subpart no later
than December 31,
1987:
Cook
Macoupin
DuPage
Madison
Kane
Monroe
Lake
St. Clair
Ne~e~These eet~rtt~esare proposed ~o be
designated as r~ona a4nmer~tby ~he ~SEPA ~47 Fed’~Reg~
~5887
c~uIy2~I-i ~982~
c)
Notwithstanding subsection
(b),
if any county
is
designated
as nonattairiment by the tJSEPA at any time
80—207
—8—
subsequent
to
the effective date of
this Subpart,
the
owner
or operator of an emission source located in that
county or
any county contiguous
to that county who would
otherwise
be subject
to the compliance date in
subsection
(b)
comply with
the requirements
of this
Subpart within one year from the date of redesignation
but
in no case later than December
31,
1987.
(Source:
Amended at
___
Ill. Reg.
,
effective
___________
Section 215.407
Compliance Plan
a)
The owner
or operator
of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.405(a)(l) shall
submit
to the Agency
a
compliance plan,
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 201,
Subpart H,
including
a project completion schedule where
applicable,
no later
than April
21,
1983.
b)
The owner
or operator
of
an emission source subject to
Section
215.405(b)
shall submit
to the Agency
a
compliance
plan,
including a project completion schedule
where applicable,
no
later than December
31, 1986.
C)
The owner
or operator of
an emission source subject
to
Section 215.405(c) shall submit
a compliance plan,
including
a project completion schedule within
90 days
after
the date of
redesignation,
but
in no case later
than December 31,
1986.
d)
Unless
the submitted
compliance plan or schedule
is
disapproved by the Agency,
the owner
or operator of
a
facility or emission source subject
to the rules
specified
in subsections
(a),
(b)
or
(c) may operate
the
emission source according
to the plan and schedule
as
submitted.
e)
The plan and schedule shall meet the requirements of
35
Ill. Adm. Code
201, Subpart
H,
including specific
interim dates
as required
in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 201.242.
(Source: Amended
at
___
Ill. Req.
1
effective
___________
Section 215.408
Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing
a)
No owner
or operator
of
a heatset web offset
lithographic printing facility,
located
in Cook, DuPage,
Kane,
Lake,
Macoupin, Madison,
Mcflenry,
Monroe,
St.
Clair or hill County, emitting over
100 tons/year of
organic material,
in the
absence
of pollution control
equipment, may cause
or allow the operation
of
a heatset
web offset press
unless:
80—208
—9—
1)
An
incinerator system
is
installed and operated
that oxidizes
at least
9u percent
of the organic
materials
(measured as total combustible carbon)
in
the dryer exhaust
airstrearn
to carbon dioxide and
water;
or
2)
The fountain solution contains
no more than eight
(8) percent,
by weight,
of volatile organic
material and
a condensation recovery system
is
installed
and operated that removes at leat
75
percent of
the non—isopropyl alcohol organic
materials from the dryer exhaust airstream.
b)
No owner
or operator
of
a heatset web offset
lithographic printing
facility,
located
in
a county
other
than Cook, DuPage,
Kane,
Lake, Macoupin, Madison,
McHenry,
Monroe,
St. Clair
or hill County, emitting over
100 tons/year
of organic material,
in the absence
of
pollution control equipment, may cause or allow
the
operation
of
a heatset web offset press unless
the
fountain solution contains
no more than eight
(8) per-
cent,
by weight,
of volatile organic material.
(Source: Added
at
Ill. Req.
,
effective
___________
IT
IS SO ORDERED
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Prop~sedRule, S9cond Notice
Opinion
and Order was adopted
on the
~
‘-~
day of
~
1987,
by a vote
of
~,—O
.
c~_
~
Dorothy M. dunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
80—209
