78-282
78-293
78-297
78-298
78-316
78-319

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 28,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

 R85-21

(A)

35 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE

CODE 211 AND 215

)

ADOPTED RULE.

 FINAL ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by R.C.

 Flemal):

This matter

 comes before

 the Board upon

 a proposal

 of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)

 to amend

certain portions of

 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code 211 and 215.

 The Agency

filed

 its proposal on September

 23, 1985,

 and subsequently

amended

 it on December

 12, 1985, and March

 5, 1986~ The Agency’s

proposal

 is occasioned

 by the proposed disapprova1~of

 the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

 (“USEPA”)

of

 some of the

regulations adopted by the Board on December

 30, 1982,

 in the

RACT II proceeding

 (R80—5).

It

 is the Agency’s position that the

amendments as offered

 in its proposal would satisfy the

objections raised by USEPA.

Hearings were held

 on December

 12 and 13,

 1985,

in

Springfield,

 Illinois,

 and on March

 6 and

7,

 1986,

 in Chicago,

Illinois.

On June

 17,,

 1986,

 the Department of

 Energy and Natural

Resources

 (“Department”) determined that an economic

 impact study

(“EelS”) would be prepared for only one of the sections contained

in the Agency proposal.

 That section,

35

 Iii.

 Adm. Code 215.345,

deals with graphic arts (flexographic and rotogravure printing)

operations.

 Regarding the other amendments proposed

 by the

Agency,

 the Department found that the cost of making

 a formal

study would be economically unreasonable

 in relation to the value

of the study to the Board

 in determining

 the adverse economic

impact of those proposed regulations.

 The Economic and Technical

Advisory Committee

 (“ETAC”) concurred

 in the Department’s

determination on June 20,

 1986.

Due

to

 the decision of both the Department and ETAC that

preparation of an EcIS would

 be necessary concerning proposed

Section 215.245

 of the Agency’s proposal, the Board determined

that consideration of the merits of the proposal would be handled

in two Dockets,

 A and

B.

 In this manner,

 the Board has been able

1Notice of the proposed disapproval was published

 at 50 Fed. Reg.

28224

 (proposed July

 11, 1985).

—2—

to proceed to decision on these portions of the Agency proposal

for which no Eels was prepared.

 Docket A,

 the subject of this

Opinion and Order, has been the docket

 in which all portions of

the Agency proposal other than Section 215.245 have been

considered.

 Docket B will serve the purpose of allowing for

consideration of Section 215.245.

FIRST NOTICE HISTORY

On August

 28, 1986,

 the Board proposed

 for first notice

publication amendments to certain portions of 35

 Ill. Adm. Code

211 and 215.

 The proposed amendments were published

at

10

 Ill.

Reg.

 15480,

 September

 26, 1986.

 The statutory 45—day comment

period

 ended

 on November

10,

 1986.

The Board received six Public Comments

 (“PC”)

 during the

first notice comment period.

 These

 are:

 PC #16 filed October

24, 1986,

by

 the Agency; PC #17 filed October

31,

 1986, by the

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association; PC *18 filed November

6, 1986, by Continental Pipe Line Company;

 PC #19 filed November

10, 1996,

 by Outboard Marine Corporation (“OMC”);

 PC #20 filed

November

10,

 1986, by the

 Illinois Environmental Regulatory

Group; and PC #21 filed November

 10, 1986,

 by Unocal Corporation;

and PC

 #22 filed November

17,

 1986,

 by the Illinois Petroleum

Council.

The

 Board concluded that none of the comments submitted

during the first notice period warranted changes to the proposed

regulations except

 for the November

10,

 1986,

 comment of OMC.

That comment noted that the language of proposed Section

215.206(b)

 could be

 interpreted

 to limit

 the overall VOM

emissions from OMC’s Waukegan,

 Illinois,

 facilities to 35

 tons

per year.

 OMC stated that it believed the

 35 ton per year

limitation should pertain solely to

 these facilities’

VOM

emissions which are related to

 the coating of miscellaneous metal

parts,

 rather than

 to all VOM emissions from the site.

OMC

proposed

 a rewording of Section 215.206(b) which

 it asserted

would clarify the Board’s intent

 in proposing the section.

The Board’s intent in proposing Section 215.206(b)

 was in

fact to limit the VOM emissions from miscellaneous metal part

coating operations

 at the ~aukegan facilities

to

 35 tons per

year.

 To clarify this intent,

 the Board modified Section

215.206(b)

 as proposed

 by OMC.

SECOND NOTICE HISTORY

The Board published

 the second notice Opinion and Order

in

this docket on November

20,

 1986.

 Various circumstances of this

78-282

—3—

proceeding required

 the Board

 to undertake certain actions before

forwarding

 these materials

 to the Joint Committee on Administra-

tive Rules

 (“JCAR”), however.

First,

 it was brought

 to the Board’s attention by motion of

the Agency on December

17,

 1986,

 that there was a significant

omission

 in the

 text of

 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.584(b)

and

(d)

as

proposed by the Board at that time.

 The Agency noted that those

Sections did not contain compliance dates specifying the

 time by

which gasoline delivery vessels

 in Illinois must display the

required sticker(s)

 indicating that the vessel has passed

 a leak

test.

 The Agency proposed that December

 31, 1987,

 be adopted as

the date

 for compliance with the sticker display requirement.

The Illinois Petroleum Council

 filed a comment on December

18,

1986,

 in support of both the necessity of inclusion of a

compliance deadline, as well

 as the selection of December

31,

1987,

 as the date itself.

As described

 by Order

 of January

8,

 1987, the Board found

the inclusion of

 a compliance deadline necessary and the December

31,

 1987, date technically feasible and economically reasonable.

Consequently, by the same Order

 the Board added the December

31,

1987,

 date

 to Sections 215.584(b)

and

 (d).

Also,

 before proceeding

 to second notice,

 the Board

submitted

 to JCAR, pursuant

 to Section 6.02

 of the Illinois

Administrative Procedure Act,

 a written request

 to incorporate by

reference the materials proposed

 to be added

 in this proceeding

to Section 215.105.

 JCAR granted approval for this incorporation

by reference on March

4,

 1987.

The second notice period commenced on March

16,

 1987.

 JCAR

suggested several changes of

 a non—substantive nature

 to the

proposed

 regulations.

 JCAR also formally objected

 to proposed

Section 215.584, however, at its April

29,

 1987, meeting.

 JCAR’s

Statement of Objection was published

 in the Illinois Register on

May 15,

 1987,

at

11

 Ill.

 Reg.

 9685.

 Specifically, JCAR objected

to Section 215.584 because of its belief that the language of the

section allowed for

 the incorporation of the guidelines or

 standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency

without first receiving JCAR’s approval of the standards

or

guidelines.

FINAL NOTICE CHANGES

All of the non—substantive changes suggestged by JCAR have

been accepted by the Board,

 and are reflected

 in the text of the

regulations found

 in the Order, below.

 Specifically,

 these

changes are as follows.

 At the end of subpart e of section

215.105,

 “(December 1978)” has been added.

 In Section

2l5.107(a)(2),

 the word “previously” has been added after the

78-283

—4—

word “not”

 and before

 the word

 “subject”.

 The phrase

 “the

qualifying average” has been deleted from Section 215.107,

and

the phrase

 “that which initially made the regulation applicable

to those sources’ operations”

 has been added

 in its place.

In

the first line of Section 215.249,

 “Subpart N” has been corrected

to read “Subpart H”.

 Also in that section,

 the word “section”

has been deleted and replaced by the word “subpart”.

The Board has also decided

 to modify Section 215.584

in

order

 to meet JCAR’s objection.

 The Board will consequently

delete

 the words “or other test method approved by the USEPA”

 from Section 2l5.584(a)(6).

 Along

 this end,

 a Notice of

Modification to meet this JCAR objection will

 be published

 in the

Illinois Register

 on June 5,

 1987,

 at 11

 Ill.

 Reg.

 10716.

The remaining issue

 to be addressed at this juncture does

not involve

 a change

in

the

 text of these regulations,

but

nevertheless warrants discussion.

 Between the time that first

notice publication occurred

 in this proceeding

 and today, Section

215.206 was modified

as

 a consequence

 of an unrelated Board

proceeding

 (see Petition for Site—Specific Volatile Organic

Material Emission Limitations

 for National Can Corporation, R85—

28, January 22,

 1987).

 Consequently, Section 215.206 presently

exists

 in a somewhat different form that it did when the

amendments

 to Section 215.206 which have been proposed

 in this

proceeding were published at first notice.

 Section 215.206, as

shown

 in the Order

 (below),

 is that section as amended

 by the

National Can site—specific proceeding, and

 of course includes as

well the amendments

 adopted

 in the

 instant proceeding.

HISTORY OF RACT

II

The origin of this proceeding is rooted in the requirements

 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”)

 (42 U.S.C.A.

 Section 7401 et.

seq.).

 Pursuant to Section 109 of the CAA, USEPA adopted a

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

 (“NAAQS”)

 for ozone.

Attainment of this NAAQS was

 to have been demonstrated for all

areas of

 the state by December

31,

 1982,

 according to the

provisions of Section l72(a)(l)

of

 the CAA.

 However,

 Illinois

was unable

 to make such a demonstration.

 It therefore applied

for

 and received an extension of this deadline until December

31,

1987

 (pursuant

to

 the provisions of Section 172(a)(2)

 of the

CAA).

As

 a prerequisite

 to obtaining this extension,

 Illinois

was required

 in the interim

 to include

 in its State

Implementation Plan (“Sip”)

 for areas which are nonattainment

for

ozone

 “such reduction in emissions from existing sources

 in the

area as may be obtained through the

 adoption, at a minimum, of

reasonably available control

 technology”

 (Section 172(b)(3) of

CAA).

7R~9~A

—5—

“Reasonably available control technology”

 (“RACT”)

 is not

defined

 in the CAA.

 However, USEPA has promulgated

 industry—

specific “Control Technology Guidelines”

 (“CTGs”) that are

intended

 to describe RACT for

 a given industry and assist states

in determining RACT.

 USEPA has published three groups

 of CTGs.

The RACT

 II proceeding

 (In the Matter

 of RACT

 II Rules,

 R80—5)

was

 intended

 to satisfy the RACT requirements as outlined by the

second group of CTGs.~ USEPA disapproved certain of the rules

adopted by the Board

 in RACT II

 (discussed

 specifically, below)

because,

 in general,

 it found t~oserules to be “inconsistent

with the requirements of RACT”.

 The present Agency proposal

represents,

 therefore, another attempt by the Agency

 to have

enacted

regulations

representing

RACT

for

those

source

categories

included

 in the second group of CTGs.

USEPA PROPOSED DISAPPROVAL OF

RACT

II

Specifically,

 the USEPA on July 11,

 1985, proposed

to

disapprove

all

 or portions

 of the following rules adopted by the

Board

 in RACT II:

1.

 the definition

of

 (now found

 in Section

“Miscellaneous Metal

 211.122)

Parts and Products”

 contained

 in Rule 201

2.

 Rule 205

 (s)(2)

 (now Section 215.402;

provides an exemption to the

limitations of Subpart

 P for

any facility whose aggregate

uncontrolled rotogravure

and/or flexographic printing

press emissions of volatile

organic material are 1,000

tons/year or less

 in the

absence of air pollution

control

 equipment,

 or whose

similar emissions would be

2The second group of CTGs covered

 the following source

categories:

 factory surface coating of flatwood paneling;

petroleum refinery fugitive emissions; pharmaceutical

manufacturing; rubber tire manufacturing; surface coating of

miscellaneous metal parts and products; graphic arts (printing);

dry cleaning perchloroethylene;

 leak prevention from gasoline

tank trucks and vapor

 collection systems; petroleum liquid

storage

 in external

 floating roof tanks.

3Exhibit

 (“Ex.”)

3,

 p. 28225.

7R.2R5

—6—

less than 1,000 tons/year

when averaged over the

preceeding three calendar

years)

3.

 Rule

205

 (s)(l)(D)(ii)

 (now Section 215.401(d) (2);

applies to the packaging

rotogravure process and

provides that a capture

 system used

 in conjunction

with an emission control

system must,

 in combination,

provide

 an overall reduction

in volatile organic emissions

of at least 65

 or the

maximum reduction achievable

using good engineering

design)

4.

 Rule 205

 (n)(l)(K)

 (now Section 215.204(k);

deals with emissions

limitations for the painting

of Heavy Off—Highway Vehicle

Products during manufacture,

and allows

 4.3 lbs VOM/gallon

of coating for an extreme

performance top coat and 4.8

lbs VOM/gallon of coating for

final repair coating)

5.

 Rule 205 (o)(3)(D)(iv)

 (now Section 2i5.l24(b)(4);

exempts stationary storage

tanks equipped with an

external floating roof which

are used

 to store crude oil

from the Section 215.124(a)

requirement of use of a

secondary seal)

Also in the July 11,

 1985, proposed disapproval,

 USEPA found

the Board’s regulations deficient in the CTG categories of

synthetic pharmaceutical manufacturing and leak prevention

 from

78.286

—7—

gasoline tank trucks and vapor collection systems.4

 The Agency

has not proposed regulations

 in this p~oceedingdealing with

synthetic pharmaceutical manufacturing

 nor with the coating of

heavy, off—highway vehicle products.

 Therefore regulations

pertaining

 to those CTG categories have not been addressed

in

this proceeding.

 Also,

 since

 the Board has now split R85—2l into

two dockets,

 USEPA’s disapproval

 of Rules 205(s)(2)

 (Section

215.402)

 and 205(s)(l)(D)(ij)

 (Section 2l5.40l(d)(2)) will be

addressed

 at a later date in Docket

B.

 This Opinion and Order

will address,

 therefore, USEPA’s disapproval of Illinois

regulations pertaining

 to the CTG source categories of

miscellaneous metal parts and products, petroleum liquid storage

in external

 floating roof tanks,

 and leak prevention from

gasoline tank trucks and vapor collection systems.

MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS

The Agency proposes

 to amend

 the definition of

“Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products” found at 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

Code 211.122 so as

 to delete the exemption currently found

 there

for the exterior of airplanes and marine propulsion equipment.

These amendments are

 in response

 to USEPA’s proposed

disapproval

 of the exemption

 for the exteriors of airplanes and

marine propulsion equipment.

 USEPA’s disapproval

 of these

exemptions is based on that agency’s belief that “the Group II

CTG’s are intended to apply to marine propulsion equipment and

the exteriors of

 airplanes (if the airplane exteriors are coated

as a separate manufacturing operation).”

Ex.

3,

p.

 28226.

Regarding the latter,

 the Agency has concluded that no operations

for coating the exterior of airplanes exist

 in the State

and

therefore proposes the exemption for this category be deleted.

The Board has received

 no information on the record indicating

that any operations of this nature do exist

 in Illinois.

 Given

this circumstance,

 the Board

is

 at a loss

 to understand USEPA’s

insistence on enactment of

 a rule for which there are no

applicable facilities.

 However,

 the Board

 is aware that failure

to gain USEPA approval

 on this matter could jeopardize Illinois’

4In RACT

 II, R80—5,

 49 PCB 67

 (1982)

 the Board did not adopt

rules pertaining

 to either of these categories.

 The Board

indicated at that time that

 it believed application of RACT

technology

 to the relevant synthetic pharmaceutical plants in

Illinois would not be economically reasonable (pps.

 27—28),

and

that the gasoline tank truck category was addressed by existing

Board

 rules

(p.

2).

5The Agency has

 a pending proposal on this topic

 in the R86—lO

docket.

78-287

—8—

ability

 to gain approval of

 its SIP.

 Since approval

 of the SIP

is vital

 to the public interest and promulgation of the rule

would

be

 at no cost to the State,

 the Board will concede to the

USEPA on this matter and delete the exemption

 for the exterior of

airplanes from the definition of “Miscellaneous Metal

 Parts and

Products”.

The Agency proposes to delete

 the exemption for marine

propulsion devices based on USEPA’s proposed disapproval of that

exemption,

 as well

 as on its belief that compliance coatings are

or

 in the near future will be available

for

 use with marine

propulsion equipment

 (Tr.

 2 at 29).

 In fact,

 the Agency states

that the Wisconsin manufacturing facility of Outboard Marine

Corporation (“OMC”, the same corporation for which the marine

propulsion exception was made in Illinois) has used extreme

performance coatings which meet the limit of 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon

(Ex.

2,

p.

3)

 found at 35

 Ill.

 Adni.

 Code 2l5.204(j)(3).

The Agency notes that OMC’s Waukegan,

 Illinois, facilities

are the only emission sources that woul~be affected by a

deletion of the exemption

 (Tr.

2

at

27)

 The VOM emissions from

the facilities occur

as

 a result of painting the following items:

—

 Outboard motors,

 70 horsepower and above

—

 Miscellaneous small parts

—

 Outboard motor exhaust component parts

Tr.

 3 at 194—199;

 P.C.

 #8, Attachment

C.

OMC testified at hearing

 in R80—5 that

 it was unable to meet

the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon emission limit due

 to the unavailability

of

 a compliance coating which could meet the company’s

performance standards, and also because of the expense and

infeasibility of installing control equipment at the Waukegan

facilities

 (Ex.

 31).

 Nevertheless,

 LJSEPA determined that OMC’s

testimony did “not adequately document their

 inability

 to install

add-on controls or explain why a time extension would not

constitute sufficient

 relief”

 (Ex.

4,

p.

3).

6Eearings

 in this proceeding were conducted over

 four days, and

a

separate bound transcript was developed for each day.

Unfortunately,

 the four transcripts are not paginated

consecutively.

 Consequently,

 the transcripts of the first two

days of hearing must

be

 referred

 to individually, as follows:

The transcript of the December

12,

 1985, hearing will be referred

to as

 “Tr.

 1”;

 similarly,

 the transcript of the December

13,

1985, hearing will be

 “Tr.

 2”.

 The transcripts of the March

5

and 6,

 1986, hearings are numbered consecutively

 (pps.

 1—570).

These two transcripts can therefore be referred

 to together as

“Tr.

 3”.

78.28~

—9—

The Agency presented testimony at the December

13,

1985

hearing

 in support of

 its proposal

 to delete the marine

propulsion equipment exemption.

 Dr. John Reed, Supervisor of the

Technical Support Unit of the Agency’s Air Quality Planning

Section,

 testified that OMC’s Milwaukee, Wisconsin facility also

produces outboard motors and has

tested

high

 solids

coating

which meets

 the 3.5 lbs VOM/gallon limitation and satisfies

 OMC’s

performance standards (May 22, 1985,

 letter from Thomas C. Sweet,

Corporate Environmental Engineer, OMC,

 to Wolf Kiassen, Director,

Southeast Air Region, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;

this letter

 is part of group Exhibit 23).

 The Agency has also

made reference

 to correspondence between the Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources (“DNR”)

and

 the USEPA Region V office

regarding the marine propulsion device exemption in Illinois.

DNR strongly objected to the existence of this exemption due

to

that agency’s own efforts to enforce the adopted limits on the

outboard marine engine

 industry located

 in Wisconsin

 (Tr.

 2 at

28—29;

Ex.

 20).

 OMC agreed

 to a p)1an

 In 1981 to bring its

Milwaukee facility into compliance

 by the end of 1985

 (Id.

at

29;

Ex.

 23).

OMC

 is apparently behind schedule in meeting

 that

plan

 and needs more time

 to design spray equipment to use with

the compliance coatings,

 but has indicated

 to DNR that it still

intends to

 come into compliance

 (Tr. 2 at

 29; Ex.

 23).

J.

 Roger Crawford, Corporate Director

 of Environmental

Control

 for OMC testified on behalf of OMC at the March

5,

 1986,

hearing

 in opposition

 to the Agency’s proposed deletion of the

marine propulsion equipment exemption.

 Mr. Crawford indicated

that OMC finds

 the proposed deletion is “unjustified

economically” due

to

 the differences between OMC’s Milwaukee and

Waukegan facilities.

 Those differences, OMC contends, make

 utilization of high solids coatings at the Waukegan facility

“extremely expensive,

 in fact more expensive than even add—on

technology”

 (Tr.

 3 at 180).

OMC insists that before high solids coatings could

 be used

at the Waukegan plant,

 substantial modifications would have to be

made to its parts washing and air handling systems and additional

equipment would need

 to be installed.

 At the Milwaukee facility,

according

 to OMC,

 the plant layout did not have to be modified

to

accommodate the use of compliance coatings, nor did as much new

equipment need

to

 be installed.

 The capital cost associated with

the changes at the Waukegan plant

 is estimated by OMC to be

in

excess of $1 million,

 and would entail an estimated annual cost

of $371,000

 (Tr.

 3 at 186—187;

 P.C.

 #8, Attachment C).

The

Agency assumes that utilization of compliance coatings at the

7Wisconsin has the same emission limitation

 for extreme

performance coating as does Illinois:

 3.5 lbs. VOC/gallon

 (Tr.

2

at 28).

78-289

—10—

Waukegan

plant

would

 reduce emissions by an average of 30

 (Tr.

2

at 29—30), while OMC calculates the emissions reduction would be

 about

19

 (P.C.

 #8, Attachment C).

 Utilization of high solids

coatings at the Waukegan facility would therefore reduce the VOM

emissions from that plant by 6—9 tons/year.

 Using OMC’s cost

estimates for the plant modifications necessary in order

 to use

compliance coatings, the eliminated emi9ions would be achieved

at

 a cost of between $41,000 and $62,000

 per ton.

OMC estimates that add—on controls could

 be installed at the

Waukegan plant at lesser

 cost, but still

 contends the cost

involved would

 be unjustified.

 OMC submitted written cost

estimates obtained from vendors of incineration and solvent

concentrator systems.

 Installation of either

 of these systems

would reduce plant emissions by 90

 from the current level,

and

would require annual capital costs of $504,000 and $438,000,

respectively.

 The cost per

 ton of VOM removed by these systems

would

 be $18,500 and $16,100, respectively

 (P.C.

 #8, Attachment

B).

OMC noted

 that if the marine propulsion equipment exemption

is deleted,

 it would

 be “highly unlikely” that OMC would continue

any assembly or surface coating operations at the Waukegan

facility

 (Tr.

 3 at 181).

 Discontinuing those operations would

result in

 the loss of approximately 300 jobs at the Waukegan

 plant

 (Tr. at 261).

Much of the detailed economic information on the cost

for

OMC

 to comply was provided after hearing

 (OMC Comments, July

9,

1986).

 The Agency objected

 to this later

 filing and pointed out

that they had requested detailed information much earlier

 in the

proceeding.

 However, the Agency specifically rejected additional

hearings

 to probe

 the validity of this information,

 and failed to

provide

 a rationale for rejecting

 it or data to refute

it.

PETROLEUM LIQUID STORAGE

 IN EXTERNAL FLOATING ROOF TANKS

The Agency proposes a new section for adoption,

35

 Ill. Adm.

Code 215.241.

 That section would

 read as follows:

8This number

 appears as $41,000 on page

 1 of Attachment C to

OMC’s comments filed on July

9,

 1986 (referred to as P.C.

 #8).

This seems to have been an error

 in OMC’s calculations.

OMC

contends that emissions reductions would amount to

 6 tons/year,

yet

 it divided the annual cost by

 9 tons/year,

 the reduction

figure espoused by the Agency.

7g.290

—11—

Section

215.241

 External Floating Roofs

The

requirements

subsection

215.124(a)

shall

not

apply

any

stationary storage tank equipped with

 an external floating

 roof:

a)

 Exempted under Section 2l5.l23(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)

 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 F or

higher

 as determined

 by ASTM Standard D97—66.

The proposed addition of this section by the Agency is

intended

 to address USEPA’s proposed disapproval

 of Rule 205

(o)(3)(D)(iv)

 (now Section 215.124

 (b)(4))

 in R80—5.

 Section

215.124

 (b)(4) exempts all external floating roof storage tanks

used

 to store crude oil from the provisions of

35

 Ill. Adm. Code

 215.124

(a)

 (which requires,

 inter alia, the use of secondary

seals on external floating roof tanks used

 to store volatile

petroleum liquids).

 USEPA has proposed

 to disapprove this

exemption as being overbroad.

 Proposed section 215.241 would

narrow the exemption to

 “waxy, heavy pour”

 crude oils, which

USEPA itself exempts from the seal requirement

 (Id.).

The Agency presented testimony at the December 12,

 1985,

hearing

 in support of its proposal

 to add Section 215.241.

Dr.

John Ting,

 an Environmental Protection Specialist

 in the

Technical Support Unit of the Agency’s Air Quality Planning

Section,

 testified that Section 215.241

 is necessary since

Illinois cannot make the required showing

 to prevent USEPA from

disapproving Section 2l5.l24(b)(4)

 (Tr.

 1 at 95).

 Such

a

showing, which would allow Illinois to continue to exempt all

external floating roof storage tanks storing crude oil from the

secondary seal requirement, would have

 to include

 evidence either

that

 it is unreasonable

 to require the use of secondary seals

in

this circumstance, or that the allowable emissions

 under

78-291

—12—

Illinois’

 existing regulation meet USEPA’s 5

 “equivalency” rule9

(i.e.

 are within 5

 of the allowable emissions anticipated by the

CTG)

 (Tr.

 1 at 94—95;

Ex.

3,

p.

 28226).

The Agency determined there are

 92 crude oil storage tanks

in the counties affected by the proposed regulation(Tr.

 1 at 98;

for

 a discussion of why only certain counties would be subject to

proposal Section 215.241 and

 to proposed subpart H in general,

see page 18).

 The Agency calculated that the uncontrolled (i.e.

without secondary seals) emissions from those

 tanks are 309

tons/year

 (Tr.

 1 at

 98);

 if RACT

 (as defined by the CTG for this

category)

 was applied

 to these tanks, emissions would

 be reduced

by 293 tons/year

 (Id.).

 The 293 ton/year figure

 is accurate

if

none of the crude oil stored

 in the tanks

 is of the waxy, heavy

pour variety;

 a survey conducted by the Agency indicated that

only

1

 of the crude oil stored

 in external floating roof storage

tanks located

 in nonattainment counties

 is the waxy,

 heavy pour

type

 (Tr.

 1 at 131).

 Therefore,

the

 “allowable”

 emissions from

the 92 affected tanks,

 after

 the installation of secondary seals,

is approximately 16 tons/year

 (Id.).

The Agency performed

 a “cost effectiveness” analysis of

controlling VOM emissions on a per

 ton basis ~hrough the use of

secondary seals,

 and concluded that the $4621

 cost ton/VOM

reduced “does not appear

 to be unreasonable

 in comparison with

the control costs

 for other RACT categories”

 (Tr.

 1 at 101).

To

calculate this figure,

 the Agency relied on

 a cost estimate for

secondary seal installation provided by Tanco Engineering Inc.

(“TANCO”).

 TANCO estimated the cost of installing

 a secondary

seal

 to be $20/linear

 foot of

 tank circumference

 (for

 a welded

shell

 tank; see

Ex.

 15).

 The $20/foot cost

 is significantly

9USEPA’s 5

 “equivalency” rule is intended

 to allow states

flexibility in developing regulations which define RACT

differently than do the CTGs

 (Tr.

 3 at 27).

 The rule

 is applied

as follows:

 If a state elects to make a showing that its

emissions from sources falling within

 a particular CTG category

meet this rule,

 the state must determine the

 total emissions

allowed by the CTG

 (i.e., after application of

 the control

technology prescribed there; the resulting level of control

is

referred

 to by USEPA as

 the “presumptive norm”).

 This level

of

emissions is then compared

 to the emissions allowed

 (including

exemptions)

 by the state

 regulation.

 If there

 is less than a 5

difference

 in allowable emissions,

 USEPA will determine the state

regulation

 to be “equivalent”

 to the presumptive norm

 (Tr.

 3 at

28;

Ex.

 26(b)).

 For numerical examples of the application of

this rule,

 see Tr.

 1 at 14—15 and Tr.

 3 at 28—29.

10For

 a detailed analysis regarding how this figure was

calculated, see Ex.

 11, pps.

5,

13.

78.292

—13—

lower

than

estimate

for

the

same

work

provided

the

Chicago

Bridge

and

Iron

Company

(“CB&I”).

CB&I

provided

cost

estimate

of $55/linear foot

 (Tr.

 3 at 412).

 The CB&I estimate very

closely approximates the cost estimate for this work found

 in the

1978 CTG for this category.

 That document provides the USEPA’s

estimate of

 a cost of $54/linear foot for installation of

secondary seals

 (Tr.

 1 at

 109;

Ex.

12,

 p. 4—7).

The Agency also evaluated whether the allowable emissions

under existing Section 2l5.l24(b)(4) are within

5

 of those

allowed by the CTG, and thus whether

 the 5

 “equivalency” rule

can be met by Section 2l5.l24(b)(4).

 The Agency calculated that

the emissions allowed by that section are 124

 greater than those

allowable under

 the CTG,

 so determined that the

5

 “equivalency”

rule cannot

 be met by the existing regulation

 (Tr.

 1 at 99—100;

Ex.

11,

p.

 12).

Messrs.

 Darrell W. Bruckert and Joseph

A.

 Fisher

 testified

for the Illinois Petroleum Council

 (“IPC”)

 in opposition to

proposed Section 215.241.

 IPC also sponsored testimony in the

R80—5 proceeding

 in opposition to a proposal requiring the

installation of secondary seals on crude oil tanks

 (Tr.

 3 at

425).

 IPC contends that such

 a requirement would impose “an

unnecessary and excessive economic burden on the petroleum

operations

 in the State of

 Illinois”

 (Id.).

IPC believes that USEPA’s proposed disapproval

 “gives little

or

no

 insight” as to why USEPA found

 the exemption of crude oil

storage tanks from the secondary seal requirement

 to be deficient

(Id. at 433).

 More reveajfng, from IPC’s perspective, was an

internal USEPA memorandum

 addressing

 the SIP revision material

submitted

 to USEPA by the Agency after the R80—5 proceeding.

In

that memorandum

 its author, William

 M. Vatavuk of the Economic

Analysis Branch,

 stated that

 in his opinion the cost

effectiveness value

 (i.e.,

 cost per

 ton of reduced VOM emissions)

of $2,410/ton calculated by IPC was “quite reasonable”, but that

a higher

 cost effectiveness figure does not alone justify

excluding crude oil storage tanks from RACT II controls.

 (Pr.

3

at

 434;

Ex.

5).

IPC also questions why installing secondary seals on crude

oil storage tanks

 is necessary since,

 according

 to its

calculations, due

 to the application

 of the secondary seal

11This memorandum was referred

 to and apparently relied upon by

USEPA in the document “Revision to TSD for Illinois RACT

II

Regulations”, and

 is attached

 to that document, which has been

admitted unto the record

 in this proceeding

 as Exhibit

5.

78-293

—14—

requirement to gasoline tanks

 in attainment areas12 the Illinois

SIP will achieve 13

 more emission reductions statewide than

anticipated by the CTG for this category

 (Id. at 439—440).

IPC

estimates that installation of secondary seals on crude oil

storage tanks would reduce VOM emissions by approximately 200

tons/year

 (Tr.

 3 at 445;

Ex.

 44).

In written comments submitted

 to the Board on July 23,

 1986,

USEPA indicated that “a chief reason

 for USEPA’s disapproval is

the fact that the cost effectiveness (C/E) value submitted by the

IPC is consistent with the C/E values

 in the CTG and the CTG

considers

secondary

 seals on crude oil storage tanks

to

constitute

RACT”

(Id.).

response

IPC’s

concerns

questioning

why

further

emission reductions are necessary

 in this category (given that

emissions have already been reduced

 to 13

 less than those

allowed by the CTG),

 USEPA answered that emission reductions

in

attainment

 areas cannot

 be used to make up for insufficient

reductions in areas that do not attain

 an NAAQS;

 that

is,

emission reductions

 in attainment areas cannot be traded

for

required reductions in nonattainnient areas

 (Id.

 at 6).

LEAK PREVENTION FROM GASOLINE TANK TRUCKS AND VAPOR

 COLLECTION SYSTEMS

In the R80—5 proceeding,

 the Board did not adopt new

regulations pertaining

 to leak prevention from gasoline tank

trucks and vapor

 collection systems.

 In its October

5,

 1982,

Opinion, the Board stated that it believed the category

 to be

covered

 by existing Board

 rules.

 However,

 tSEPA

 indicated

 in the

July

11,

 1985 Proposed Rulemaking that Illinois’ existing

regulations are “not adequate

 to satisfy the requirements of leak

tightness for gasoline tank trucks”

 (Ex.

3,

p.

 28226).

 More

specifically, USEPA concluded that Rule 205(p)(5)

 (now Section

215.583(e))

 is inadequate

 in that it requires delivery vessels

equipped with vapor recovery control

 systems to be designed and

maintained

 to be vapor

 tight during normal operations, yet fails

to define what is meant

 by “vapor

 tight”

 (Ex.

3,

p.

 29226).

The Agency proposes to remedy this possible deficiency by

adding

 a definition for “Vapor Collection System”

 to Section

211.122

(see

 20), and by amending Part 215,

Subpart

Y

 in the

following manner.

 The agency proposes to amend

the

 three

 existing sections of Part 215, Subpart Y, and by adding a new

12The Board adopted regulations requiring the installation of

secondary seals on gasoline storage tanks

 in attainment areas

in

the RACT II proceeding, R80—5.

7g-9Q’

—15—

section,

35

 Ill. Adm. Code 215.584, to that Subpart.

 The Agency

firther proposes that these amendments and addition apply

 to all

counties

 in which the Stage

 1 vapor recovery program applies,

since they are “integral”

 to that program

 (P.C.

#7,

p.

 19).

For

the

 sake of brevity,

 the three existing sections and the

respective proposed amendments

 to them will not be reprinted

in

the Opinion.

 Rather

 the amendments as proposed by the Agency

will be discussed.

These amendments would require that vapor

 recovery systems

operated at bulk gasoline plants, bulk gasoline terminals,

and

gasoline dispensing facilities

 be operated

 as so

 to meet

prescribed pressure levels.

 Compliance with these levels would

be shown through use of a pressure tap or equivalent on the vapor

collection system.

 These amendments would prohibit gasoline

delivery vessels from using any of the facilities described by

these sections unless those vessels display an inspection sticker

 as required by proposed Section 215.564(b)

or

 (d).

 The Agency

also proposes to add provisions in each section

 to require that

repair

 and retesting of equipment found not

 to be vapor tight

be

done within

 15 days of the discovery of the leak.

 Finally,

the

Agency proposes

 to insert “collection”

 in lieu of the word

“balance”

 in the phrase “vapor balance system”.

 The Agency

proposes this latter change for purposes of consistency because

the CTG for this category

 (admitted unto the record in this

proceeding as

Ex.

 9) uses the expression “vapor collection

system”.

 The Agency suggests that in practice,

 “vapor balance

system” and “vapor collection system” have

 the same meaning

 (Ex.

32, pps.

 1—2).

The Agency also proposes

 to add a new section

 to Subpart Y,

that would read as follows:

Section 215.584

 Gasoline Delivery Vessels

a)

 Any delivery vessel equipped for vapor control by use of

vapor collection equipment:

~j

 Shall have

 a vapor

 space connection that

 is equipped

with fittings which are vapor tight

Shall

have

its

hatches

closed

all

times

during

unloading

operations,

unless

top

vapor

recovery

system

used

Shall

not

internally

exceed

gauge

 pressure of 18

inches

water

vacuum

inches

water

Shall

 designed and maintained

 to be vapor

 tight

all

times

during

normal

operations

78-295

—16—

5)

 Shall

 not be refilled

 in Illinois at other

 than:

~j

 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 2l5.58l(b)(l) and

 (2).

6)

 Shall

 be tested annually in accordance with

the

pressure—vacuum test procedure described

 in EPA

450/2—78—051 Appendix A or other

 test method

approved by the USEPA.

 Each vessel must be repaired

and retested within

 15 days when

 it fails to

sustain:

A)

 A pressure drop

 of no more than three inches of

 water

 in five minutes; and

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.

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

~j

 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 that Subsection.

 Delivery vessels must

display a sticker, decal

 or stencil acceptable

 to the

state where

 tested or comply with the requirements of

Subsection

 (b).

Section

215.584

would

require,

inter

alia,

gasoline

delivery

vessels

tested

annually

 accordance with a USEPA approved

test

method.

The

Agency’s

intention

that

such

vessels

failing

this

type

leak—tight

test

would

required

undergo

repair

nfl,

—17—

and retesting within

 15 days after

the

 leak is discovered by the

owner,

 operator, or

 the Agency

 (P.C.

#7,

 p.20).

The proposed amendments to Subpart Y have been developed

in

major part by the Agency

 in consultation with IPC’s Environmental

Quality Committee

 (Pr.

 1 at

 42; Tr.

 3 at 327—328).

 Dr. John Ping

testified

 in reference

 to the Agency’s proposed amendments to

Subpart

Y.

 Dr. Ting’s testimony indicated that these amendments

would be extremely cost effective,

 as the value of the gasoline

recovered

as

 a consequence

 of the regulations would exceed

the

cost of control

 (Tr.

 1 at 36—37).

 Darrell Bruckert, Chairman of

IPC’s Environmental Quality Committee,

 testified on behalf of IPC

at the March

 6 hearing.

 Mr. Bruckert testified that

 in all

aspects of the proposed amendments to Subpart Y, with the

exception of the matter of the

 time limit associated with repair

and retesting,

 IPC supports adoption of the amendments as

proposed by the Agency and urges the Board

 to adopt them

“expeditiously”

(Tr.

 3 at 328).

The issue of requiring that leaks associated with gasoline

tank trucks and vapor collection systems be repaired and retested

within

 a specified time limit, proposed

 to be

 15 days by the

Agency, was initially raised

 in the Agency’s presentation at the

March

 5 hearing

 in this matter.

 The Agency indicated

 at that

time that the 15—day time limit

 is prescribed

 in the CTG for this

category and had previously been inadvertently omitted

 (P.C.

#7,

p.

 20).

Darrell Bruckert testified at the March

 6 hearing

 in support

of a differing proposal regarding the time limit for repair and

retesting of this equipment.

 This alternative proposal was

formulated by the Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association

(“IPMA”),

 and would essentially expand

 the deadline for repair

and retesting to 30 days (Tr.

 3 at 328;

 P.C.

 #10).

 IPMA believes

the proposed 15—day limit does not provide

 adequate time to set

up a repair

 and retesting schedule, but that the 30—day

limitation could

 be met without undue hardship

 (P.C.

#1,

pp.

 1—

2).

IPMA bases this conclusion on the results from an

 informal

survey it conducted of facilities in Illinois which

 do repair

and

retesting work on gasoline tank trucks.

 This survey indicated

that these facilities believe

 15 days to be an insufficient time

within which to accomplish the required work (P.C.

#1,

p.

1).

Rather,

 the facilities suggested that the Agency pattern its

proposal after

 the policy of the Illinois Department of

Transportation, Hazardous Materials Division, on this issue.

IPMA characterized the Hazardous Materials Division’s policy as

allowing owners or operators 15 days after discovery of

 a leak to

contact

 a repair and retesting facility

 in order

 to receive a

work order

 specifying

 the date the work is

 to take place.

The

policy further requires that the date be within

 30 days of the

time the leak was discovered

 (P.C.

#1,

p.

1).

78-297

—18—

IPMA also takes

 issue with the Agency’s rationale behind

comparing Illinois with its bordering states on the issue of the

reasonableless of the

 15 day rule.

 William R.

 Deutsch, Executive

Vice President of IPMA,

 noted

 in a July 29,

 1986 letter

 to the

Board

 that

Illinois has, by far, the largest population and the

greatest number of automobiles.

 Illinois has the most

petroleum marketers owning their own transports.

Additionally, Illinois has more miles of roads, which

means more gasoline consumption, which means more

transports

 to deliver

 the product, which means the

greater

 likelihood for repairs and retesting, which

means more time

 is needed to service these transports

given

 the limited number

 of repair facilities

 (P.C.

#10,

p.

1).

The Agency has

 indicated at hearing and

 in its written

comments that it would interpret and implement the 15—day rule,

if adopted by the Board,

 as follows.

 The period would begin on

the date the leak is first detected,

 and would consist of 15

calendar

 (rather than business) days within which

 the repair and

retestirig must take place

 (Tr.

 3 at 335; P.C.

#7,

p.

 20).

The

Agency

did

suggest

hearing

that

would

also

allow

seven

ten—day period,

 immediately after

 the 15—day period had expired,

for the

 results of the retesting

 to travel by mail

 to the Agency

offices before any enforcement action would be initiated

 (Tr.

3

at 335—336).

CONCLUSIONS

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

The Board today deletes the marine propulsion equipment

exemption from Section 211.122.

 USEPA has indicated that the CTG

for this category is intended

 to apply to marine propulsion

equipment, and the Board believes

 it appropriate that Illinois’

general

regulations

reflect

this

intention.

That position notwithstanding,

 the Board concludes that OMC

has adequately demonstrated the economic unreasonableness that

would result

 if its Waukegan facilities were required

 to utilize

add—on control equipment or high solids coatings

 in order to meet

the

limitations

Section

215.204(j).

previously

discussed,

the cost per ton of VOM removed by these approaches would range

from $16,000

 to $62,000.

 (Agency Responsive Comment).

 The Board

believes that level of expenditure is economically unreasonable,

 particularly given the volume of emissions that would be

recovered through either of the two compliance approaches.

For

that reason, the Board

 today also adopts amendments

to

 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 215.206 which create a site—specific exemption from

Section 215.204(j) for OMC’s Waukegan facilities.

78-298

—19—

Petroleum Liquid Storage

 in External Floating Roof Tanks

The Board believes that it

 is technically feasible

to

require the installation of secondary seals on external floating

roof crude oil storage tanks

 (other

 than those used

 to store

waxy,

 heavy pour crude oils).

 The Board will,

 therefore, adopt

Section 215.241.

The Board realizes

 that in the prior RACT

 II proceeding,

in

exempting all external floating roof crude oil storage

 tanks from

the secondary seal requirement, the Board concluded that “the low

cost—effectiveness, coupled with the small quantity of emissions

at stake,

 indicate that secondary seals should not be considered

RACT for crude oil tanks”

 (R80—5,

 49 PCB 67, 90, October

5,

1982).

 There are two principal reasons why the Board today

alters

 its former position.

First,

 the information received on the record

 in this matter

indicates the use of

 secondary seals on crude oil storage tanks

to

 be cost—effective.

 The Agency and IPC have submitted varying

estimates

 of the cost per

 ton of recovering VOM emissions through

the use

 of secondary seals.

 The Agency testified

 that this cost

is $462 ton

 if crude oil

 is valued at $29.60/barrel

 (Tr.

 1 at

101).

 Using

 a crude oil price

 of $13/barrel, which more closely

approximates the price of crude oil today, the Agency’s

calculations would

 render

 a cost per ton of VON recovered

of

 $638

(see Exhibit

11,

p.

 13).

 IPC believes the cost per ton of VOM

recovered

 to be $2,410

 and, as discussed above,

 introduced

evidence

 indicating that USEPA found that figure to be

reasonable.

Assuming arguendo that IPC’s cost estimate

 is the most

accurate, this cost—effectiveness value

 is consistent with that

envisioned by the CTG for this category

 (P.C.

#9,

p.

5).

Moreover,

 the $2,410 per ton figure cannot be evaluated

in

isolation.

 The CTG for

 this category describes secondary seals

as RACT

for

 external floating roof tanks, and does not make any

distinctions based

 on the contents of the tanks

 (except for those

containing waxy, heavy pour crudes).

 This would

 indicate that

USEPA’s determination as

 to what technology constitutes RACT for

this category considered VOM emissions from external floating

roof petroleum liquid storage tanks

 in the aggregate (i.e., both

those storing gasoline and those storing crude oil).

 Thus the

net savings enjoyed by facilities

 installing secondary seals on

gasoline storage tanks should be used

 to offset the cost incurred

by installing such seals on crude oil storage tanks.

The

 record

indicates that the major sources affected by Section 215.241 have

both gasoline and crude oil storage tanks

 (Tr.

 3 at 462,

 469).

The cost—effectiveness value

 for reducing VON emissions from

crude oil storage tanks therefore becomes even more reasonable

when offset by the net credit

 (or reduction in costs) brought

about

 by the secondary seal requirement on gasoline storage

tanks.

7R-24Q

—20—

Second, all other Region V states and those non—Region V

states bordering Illinois with ozone nonattainmnent areas have

either promulgated USEPA approved regulations pertaining

to

the

secondary seal requirement

 for crude oil storage tanks, or are

not required

 to have RACT regulations due

 to having

 achieved

attainment status

 (Ex.

 34).

 That reality works

 to preclude the

Board from determining

 that requiring secondary seals on crude

oil storage tanks

 in Illinois might be economically unreasonable;

it is difficult

 to ascertain what might make such

 a requirement

unreasonable

 in this State but reasonable (and RACT) virtually

everywhere

 else;

 nor does the Record provide any justification

for such a distinction.

Leak Prevention

 from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection

Systems

The Board also determines that the Agency’s proposed

amendments and addition

 to Subpart Y are technically feasible and

economically reasonable,

 and proposes them, with

 two slight

modifications.

As noted above, these proposed changes

 to Subpart

 Y have

been formulated by the Agency

 in cooperation with IPC’s

Environmental Quality Committee.

 This effort represents a

notable example of the regulating and regulated communities

working together

 to bring

 about results which are both

environmentally beneficial and economically reasonable.

 There

has been one point of contention, however, between

 the Agency and

IPC, and

 that is the time frame within which leaking gasoline

tank trucks and vapor collection systems must be

 repaired and

 retested.

The Board believes that a 15—day period

for

 repair

and

retesting after

 a leak has been discovered,

 though not allowing

a

great deal

 of leeway to

 an owner

 or operator, should provide

ample

 time for the required repair and retesting work to take

place.

 Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin also require

an owner

 to repair

 and retest within 15 days (P.C.

#7,

p.

 20).

However, the Board concludes it is appropriate

 to provide

that those

 15 days

 be “business”, and not “calendar”, days.

Depending on the day the leak

 is discovered,

 as many as five days

of the 15 day period may consist of Saturdays and Sundays, days

on which repairs may be difficult

 to obtain.

 The effective time

for repairs and retesting

 in that instance would be reduced

 to 10

days, which places an unreasonable burden on owners and operators

of this equipment.

 This slight alteration of the Agency’s

proposal

 is intended

 to balance the necessity of getting

 repair

and retesting work done

 in a timely fashion with the difficulty,

as expressed by IPMA, of accomplishing these

 tasks within

15

days.

78-300

—21—

Consequently,

proposed

for

first

notice

publication,

the Board will

 insert “business” after

 the number

 “15” and before

the word

 “days”

 in Sections 2l5.581(e)(6), 2l5.582(d)(3),

2l5.583(d)(5), and 2l5.584(a)(6).

 Similarly,

 to clarify the

issue of responsibility for discovering leaks,

 the Board will add

the words “after discovery of the leak by the owner, operator,

or

the Agency”

 after

 the word “days”

 in the same sections as noted

above.

 This change, which is supported by the Agency

 (P.C.

#7,

p.

 21), specifies that the time period for repair and retesting

begins

 to run when

 an owner

 or operator discovers a leak

 in its

own equipment,

 as opposed to being initiated only by those

instances when

 the leak

 is discovered as

 a result of an Agency

check.

OTHER DETERMINATIONS

The Agency has also proposed several other amendments, none

of which have generated any appreciable amount of controversy.

To 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code

 215.105,

 the Agency proposes

 to add

reference

 to a document which contains the test methods

 to be

used in establishing that gasoline dispensing

 facilities are

leak—tight.

The

 source is referred to

 in several of the Agency’s

proposed amendments

 to Subpart Y.

In addition, the Agency proposes to add

 a new section,

215.107,

 in order

 to clarify certain language used

 in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 215.245,

 215.402, 2l5.581(e)(2), and 2l5.581(f)(l).

Section 215.107

 is intended

 to clarify the applicability of those

regulations, all of which are qualified by the words “when

averaged over the preceeding three calendar years”.

Finally,

 as part of the proposed new Subpart

H,

 the Agency

proposes

 the adoption of two sections,

 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code 215.240

and 215.249,

 in addition to Section 215.241.

 Section 215.240

would specify the counties

 in which affected sources must comply

with the requirements of Subpart

H.

 The Agency lists those

counties as Cook, DuPage, Kane,

 Lake, Macoupin, Madison, McHeary,

Monroe, St.Clair,

 and 1~i1l. All except Mdllenry and WIll are

officially designated as ozone nonattainment areas.

 Section 172

of the

CAA

requires sources

 in nonattainment areas only to apply

RACT.

 The Agency proposes that McHenry and Will counties also be

included within the scope of Subpart H

 (even though both are

in

attainment

 for ozone)

 for several reasons.

 First,

 they have

traditionally been included

 in the calculations pertaining

 to the

Chicago urban area for purposes of developing the SIP for

ozone.

 Second,

 the emissions from sources within those counties

are thought

 to substantially impact the ozone air quality of the

Chicago urban

 area.

 Finally, the emission reductions from

currently adopted

 and proposed RACT regulations to sources

in

these counties have already been included

 in SIP analyses and are

—22—

necessary to demonstrate

 and achieve attainment of the ozone

standard

 in the Chicago urban area

 (P.C.

 #7, p.7).

 The Board

received no testimony or written comments

 in opposition

to

Section 215.240 from sources in the affected counties.

Section 215.249 specifies that sources subject to Subpart

H

must comply with the applicable limitations within one year of

the effective date of the section or by December 31,

 1967,

whichever occurs

 first.

The Board

 finds proposed Sections 215.105,

 215.107, 215.240,

and 215.249

 to be reasonable and necessary,

 and adopts them with

certain modifications.

All

 of these modifications are the result

of suggestions from JCAR which have been accepted by the Board.

All

 of the modifications are non—substantive, and are shown

in

the text of the rules found

 in the Order,

 below.

78-302

—23—

ORDER

The

Clerk

the

Pollution

Control

Board

directed

submit

the

following

adopted

rule

the

Secretary

State

for

final

notice:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

AIR

POLLUTiON

CHAPTER

I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c:

 EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 211

DEFINITIONS AND GERERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

211.101

 Incorporations by Reference

211.102

 Abbreviations and Units

SUBPART

B:

 DEFINITIONS

Section

211.121

 Other Definitions

211.122

 Definitions

Appendix

A

 Rule

 into Section Table

Appendix B

 Section into Rule Table

AUTHORITY:

 Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Section 27

of the Environmental Protection Act

 (Ill.

 Rev. Stat.

 1981,

ch.

lll’/2, pars.

 1010 and 1027).

SOURCE:

 Adopted

 as Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution, Rule 201:

Definitions, R7l—23,

 4 PCB 191, filed and effective April 14,

1972; amended

 in R74—2 and R75—5,

 32 PCB 295,

at

 3 Ill.

 Reg.

5,

p.

 777, effective February

3,

 1979; amended

 in R78—3 and 4,

35

PCB 75 and 243,

at

 3 Ill.

 Reg.

30,

p.

 124, effective July 26,

1979; amended

 in R80—5, at

 7 Ill.

 Reg.

 1244. effectove Kamiaru

21.

 1093’

 codified

at

7

 Ill.

 Reg. 13590;

 amended

 in R82—l

 (Docket

A)

at

10

 Ill. Reg.

 12624, effective July

7,

 1986; amended

 in R85—

21(A)

at

________

 Ill. Reg.

________,

 effective

________________

7g.303

—24—

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B:

 AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 215

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

SUBPART A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

215.100

215.101

215. 102

215.103

215.104

215.105

215. 106

215. 107

Introduction

Clean—up

and

Disposal

Operations

Testing Methods

Abbreviations and Conversion Factors

Definitions

Incorporations by Reference

Afterburners

Determination

Applicability

SUBPART B:

 ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE

AND LOADING OPERATIONS

Storage Containers

Loading Operations

Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks

External Floating Roofs

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

Compliance

Plan

SUBPART

ORGANIC

EMISSIONS

FROM

MISCELLANEOUS

EQUIPMENT

Separation

Operations

Pumps

and

Compressors

Vapor

Blowdown

Safety Relief Valves

SUBPART

E:

 SOLVENT CLEANING

Solvent Cleaning

 in General

Cold Cleaning

Open Top Vapor Degreasing

Conveyorized Degreasing

Compliance Plan

Section

215.121

215.122

215.123

215. 124

215. 125

215. 126

Section

215. 141

215.142

215.143

215. 144

Section

215. 181

215.182

215. 183

215.184

215.185

78-304

—25—

SUBPART

F:

 COATING OPERATIONS

Section

215.202

215.204

215.205

215.206

215.207

215.208

215.209

Organic

215.

210

215. 211

215.

212

215. 213

Compliance Schedules

Emission

Limitations

for

Manufacturing

Plants

Alternative

Emission

Limitations

Exemptions from Emission Limitations

Internal Offsets

Testing Methods for Solvent Content

Exemption

 from General Rule on Use of

Material

Alternative Compliance Schedule

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

Compliance Plan

Special Requirements for Compliance Plan

Section

215. 240

215. 241

215.249

SUBPART

SPECIAL

LIMITATIONS

FOR

SOURCES

MAJOR

URBANIZED

AREAS

WHICH

ARE

NONATTAINMENT

FOR

OZONE

Applicability

External

Floating

Roofs

Compliance

Dates

Use

Organic

Material

Alternative

Standard

Fuel

Combustion

Emission

Sources

Operations with Compliance Program

Viscose Exemption (Repealed)

SUBPART

N:

 VEGETABLE OIL PROCESSING

Hexane Extraction Soybean Crushing

Hexane Extraction Corn Oil Processing

Recordkeeping for Vegetable Oil Processes

Compliance Determination

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

Compliance Plan

SUBPART K:

 USE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL

Section

215.301

215.302

215.303

215.304

215. 305

Section

215. 340

215.342

215.344

215.345

215.346

215.347

—26—

Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing

Exemptions

Applicability of Subpart K

Testing and Monitoring

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

Alternative Compliance Plan

Compliance Plan

SUBPART

Q:

 SYNTHETIC ORGANiC CHEMICAL AND

POLYMER MANUFACTURING

Section

215. 420

215. 421

215.422

215. 423

215.424

215.425

215.426

215.427

215.428

General

Requirements

Inspection Program Plan for Leaks

 Inspection Program for Leaks

Repairing Leaks

Recordkeeping

 for Leaks

Reporting

 for Leaks

Alternative Program for Leaks

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

Compliance Plan

SUBPART

R:

 PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED

INDUSTRIES; ASPHALT MATERIALS

Petroleum Refinery Waste Gas Disposal

Vacuum Producing Systems

Wastewater

 (Oil/Water) Separator

Process Unit Turnarounds

Leaks:

 General Requirements

Monitoring Program Plan for Leaks

Monitoring Program for Leaks

Recordkeeping for Leaks

Reporting for Leaks

Alternative Program for Leaks

Sealing Device Requirements

Compliance Schedule for Leaks

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

SUBPART

P:

 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

Section

215.401

215.402

215.403

215.404

215.405

215.406

215.407

Section

215.441

215. 442

215.443

215. 444

215. 445

215.446

215.447

215.448

215.449

215. 4 50

215. 451

215.452

215.453

78-306

—27—

SUBPART

RUBBER

AND

MISCELLANEOUS

PLASTIC

PRODUCTS

Section

215. 461

215.462

215.463

215.464

215.465

215.466

Section

215.500

215. 510

215. 512

215. 513

215. 514

215. 515

215.516

215. 517

Section

215. 541

Section

215.561

215.562

215.563

Section

215. 581

215.582

215.583

215.584

Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires

Green Tire Spraying Operations

Alternative Emission Reduction Systems

Testing and Monitoring

Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

Compliance Plan

SUBPART

U:

 COKE MANUFACTURING AND

BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY

Exception

Coke By—Product Recovery Plants

Coke By—Product Recovery Plant Leaks

Inspection Program

Recordkeeping Requirements

Reporting Requirements

Compliance Dates

Compliance Plan

SUBPART W:

 AGRICULTURE

Pesticide Exception

SUBPART X:

 CONSTRUCITON

Architecural Coatings

Paving

Operations

Cutback Asphalt

SUBPART

Y:

 GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Bulk Gasoline Plants

Bulk Gasoline Terminals

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Gasoline Delivery Vessels

~fl1

—28—

SUBPART

Z:

 DRY CLEANERS

Section

215.601

 Perchloethylene Dry Cleaners

215.602

 Exemptions

215.603

 Testing and Monitoring

215.604

 Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

215.605

 Compliance Plan

215.606

 Exception to Compliance Plan

Appendix A

 Rule into Section Table

Appendix B

 Section into Rule Table

Appendix C

 Past Compliance

 Dates

Appendix D

 List of Chemicals Defining Synthetic Organic

Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing

AUTHORITY:

 Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Section 27

of the Environmental Protection Act

 (Ill. Rev.

 Stat.

 1983,

ch.

lll~pars. 1010 and 1027).

SOURCE:

 Adopted as Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution, Rule 205:

 Organic

Material Emission Standards and Limitations, R7l—23,

 4 PCB 191,

filed

 and effective April

14,

 1972;

 amended

 in R77—3,

 33 PCB 357,

at

 3 Ill.

 Reg. 18,

p.

 41, effective May 3,

 1979; amended

 in R78—3

and R78—4,

 35 PCB

75,

at

 3 Ill.

 Reg.

30,

p.

 124, effective July

28,

 1979; amended

 in R80—5 at

7

 Ill.

 Reg.

 1244,

 effective January

21,

 1983;

 codified at

7

 Ill. Reg.

 13601;

 Notice of Corrections at

7

 Ill.

 Reg.

 14575; amended

 in R82—l4 at

8

 111.

 Reg. 13254,

effective July 12,

 1984; amended

 in R83—36

at

 9 Ill.

 Reg.

 9114,

effective May 30, 1985;

 amended

 in R82—l4 at

 9 Ill.

 Reg.

 13960,

effective August

 28, 1985;

 amended

 in R85—28 at I1l.Reg.

 3127,

effective February

3,

 1987;

 amended

 in R85—21(A)

at

________

 Ill.

Reg.

________,

 effective

____________

78-308

—29—

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

AIR

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

1:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 211

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 211.122

 Definitions

“Miscellaneous Metal

 Parts and Products”:

 for the

purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(j), miscellaneous metal

parts and products shall

 include farm machinery, garden

 machinery,

 small appliances,

 commercial machinery,

 industrial

machinery,

 fabricated metal products and any other

 industrial

category which coats metal parts or

 products under the Standard

Industrial Classification Code for Major Groups

33,

34,

35,

36,

37, 38, or 39 with the exception of the following:

 coating lines

subject

 to 35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 215.204(a)—(i)

and

 (k),

 bhe ex~er~er

e~~rp~ertes, automobile or light—duty truck refinishing,

the

exterior of marine vessels

 e~ttd~i~g

 me~rtepre

 ~Mert e~~te~

and the customized top coating of automobiles and trucks

if

production

 is less than thirty—five vehicles per day.

“Vapor Collection System”:

 all piping,

 seals,

 hoses,

connections, pressure—vacuum vents,

 and other possible sources

between the gasoline delivery vessel

 and the vapor processing

unit and/or

 the storage tanks and vapor holder.

SUBCHAPTER C:

 EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 215

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

SUBPART A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 215.105

 Incorporations by Reference

The following materials are incorporated by reference:

a)

 American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race

 Street, Philadelphia,

 PA 19103:

1)

 ASTM D 1644—59 Method A

2)

 ASTM D 1475—60

3)

 ASTM D 2369—73

4)

 ASTM D 2879—83

 (Approved 1983)

78-309

—30—

5)

 ASTM D 323—82 (Approved 1982)

6)

 ASTM D 86—82

 (Approved 1982)

7)

 ASTM E 260—73

 (Approved 1973),

 E 168—67

 (Reapproved

1977),

169—63

(Reapproved

1981),

(Approved

1985)

ASTM

 97—66

b)

 Federal Standard l4la, Method 4082.1

 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—05l Appendix A and

1~ppendixB (December 1978).

(Board Note:

 The incorporations by reference listed above

contain no later amendments or editions.)

Section 215.107

 Determination of Applicability

a)

 In determining the applicability of regulations

 in this

Part which are qualified by “when averaged over

the

preceding

 three calendar years”

 the “preceding three

calendar years”

 shall mean:

~j

 The three years preceding the date by which

compliance

 is required for purposes of determining

initial applicability to existing sources

~j

 Any consecutive three year period for purposes of

determining applicability

 to sources not previously

subject to the regulation on the date

 by which

compliance

 is required.

b)

 Sources

 to which the regulation has been applicable at

~py time shall continue to be subject to the applicable

limitations even

 if operations change so

as

 to result

in

an average which

 is below that which initially made the

regulation applicable to those sources’

 operations.

78-3m

—31—

SUBPART

COATING

OPERATIONS

Section 215.206

 Exemptions

 from Emission Limitations

a)

 The limitations of this Subpart shall

 not apply

to:

el)

 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

b2)

 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

3C)

 The exemption

 is approved

 in writing by the

Agency.

e3)

 Interior body spray coating material for three—piece

steel cans used by National Can Corporation at its

Rockford can manufacturing plant in Loves

 Park,

Illinois, provided that:

~A)

 The emission of volatile organic material

 from

the interior body spray coating line shall not

exceed 0.70 kg/l

 (5.8 lb/gal)

 of coating

material, excluding water, delivered to the

coating applicator; and

~B)

 The emission of volatile organic material shall

comply with the provisions of Section 215.204

by use of the

 internal offset provisions of

Section 215.207 computed on a weekly weighted

average basis.

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.

78-311

—32—

SUBPART

SPECIAL

LIMITATIONS

FOR

SOURCES

MAJOR

URBANIZED

AREAS

WHICH

ARE

NONATTAINMENT

FOR

OZONE

Section 215.240

 Applicability

Notwithstanding any other

 limitations or exceptions

 in this Part

215,

 the special requirements of this Subpart shall apply to the

affected sources

 in the

 following counties:

 Cook, DuPage, Kane,

Lake, Macoupin, Madison, McHenry, Monroe, St.

 Clair, and Will.

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)

~j

 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 F or

higher as determined by ASTM Standard D97—66.

Section 215.249

 Compliance Dates

Sources subject

 to this Subpart H shall comply with the

applicable limitations within one year of the effective date of

the subpart or by December

31,

 1987,

 whichever is sooner.

SUBPART

 Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Section 215.581

 Bulk Gasoline Plants

a)

 Subject to subsection~f+(e),no person may cause

 or allow

the transfer of gasoline from a delivery vessel

 into a

stationary storage tank located at a bulk gasoline plant

unless:

—33—

1)

 The delivery vessel

 and the stationary storage tank

are each equipped with a vapor th~erteecollection

system that meets

 the requirements of subsection

-~e~(d)

(4)

2)

 Each vapor be~eneecollection system is operating;

3)

 Be~tveryveeee~~e~el~e5eec e~esede~e~ t~i~e8

d~r~ng3eed~g

epere~tene7

un~ees e

tep

~eed~n~

veper

reee~ery

eystem

used~ The

delivery

vessel

 displays

the

appropriate

sticker

pursuant

the

requirements

Section

 215.584(b)

 or (d)

The

pressure

relief

valve(s)

the

stationary

storage

tank

and

the

delivery

vessel

are

set

release

less

than

0.7

psi

 or the highest

pressure allowed by state or

 local fire codes or

the

guidelines of the National Fire Prevention

Association; and

5)

 The stationary storage tank is equipped with

a

submerged loading pipe.

b)

 Subject to

 subsection-~g-)-(f), no person may cause

 or allow

the transfer of gasoline

 from a

 stationary storage tank

located

at

 a bulk gasoline plant

 into a delivery vessel

unless:

1)

 The requirements set forth in subsections

 (a)(1)

through

 (a)(4) are met; and

2)

 Equipment is available

at

 the bulk gasoline plant

to

provide

for

 the submerged filling of the delivery

vessel

 or the delivery vessel

 is equipped for bottom

 loading.

e~ A ~eper be~eneesyctem e1’~e~~ne~de

 the ?e~ew4ng

eempene~ts~

veper

epeee

eer~neet4~er~

ort

the

etet4em~ery eterege

ter~kt~’tet~e eq~4pped

w±th f~tt~nge w1~ttel’~

 eec veper

t~g~t~

A eenneet~rigp4pe or hese thet ~e eq~ppedw4th

~tHmgs

 whte1’~

are

vapor

t~gI’itt

end

A vapor epaee eenneet~enen the de~4veryveeee3 that

~e eqtm~ppedwtth

~tt4nge

wh~eh are

vapor

t~ght~

Repeal

—34—

d

c)

Subject

subsection~~(e),

each

owner

stationary storage

 tank located at a bulk gasoline plant

shall:

1)

 Equip each stationary storage tank with a vapor

control system that meets the requirements of

subsection

(a)

or

 (b), whichever

 is applicable;

2)

 Provide instructions

 to the operator of the bulk

gasoline plant describing necessary maintenance

operations and procedures

 for prompt notification of

the owner

 in case of any malfunction of

 a vapor

control system;

and

3)

 Repair, replace or modify any worn out or

 malfunctioning component or element of design.

e

d)

 Subject

 to subsection*f~(e),each operator of

 a bulk

gasoline plant shall:

1)

 Maintain and operate each vapor control system

in

accordance with the owner’s instructions;

2)

 Promptly notify the owner of any scheduled

maintenance or malfunction requiring replacement or

repair of

 a major component of a vapor control

system;

and

3)

 Maintain gauges, meters

 or other specified testing

devices

 in proper working order~

4)

 Operate the bulk plant vapor collection system and

gasoline loading equipment

in

 a manner

 that prevents:

A)

 Gauge pressure from exceeding

 18 inches of water

and vacuum from exceeding

 6 inches of water,

as

measured

 as close

 as possible

 to the vapor hose

connection; and

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.

5)

 Provide

 a pressure tap or equivalent on the bulk

plant vapor

 collection system

 in order

 to allow the

determination

 of compliance with 2l5.581(d)(4)(A);

and

—35—

Within

business

days

after

discovery

the

leak

the

owner,

operator,

the

Agency,

repair

and

retest

vapor

collection

system

 which exceeds the

limits

subsection

(d)(4)(A)

(B).

~e)

The

requirements

 of subsections

 (a), +d~, (c)

 and *e+

(di

shall not apply to:

1)

 Any stationary storage tank with a capacity of less

than 575 gallons;

or

2)

 Any bulk gasoline plant whose annual gasoline

throughput is less than 350,000 gallons as averaged

over the preceding three calendar years.

gf)

The

requirements

subsection

(b)

shall

only

apply

bulk

gasoline

plants:

That

have

annual

gasoline

 throughput greater

 than

equal

1,000,000

gallons,

averaged

over

the

preceding

three

calendar

years;

and

That

either

distribute

gasoline

 gasoline

dispensing facilities subject

 to the requirements of

section 2l5.583(a)(2) or

 that are located

 in the

following counties:

 Boone, Cook, DuPage,

 Kane,

 Lake,

Madison, McHenry,

 Peoria,

 Rock Island,

St.

 Clair,

Tazewell, Will, or Winnebago.

hi)

 Bulk gasoline plants were required to take certain

actions to achieve compliance which are summarized

in

Appendix

C.

Section 215.582 Bulk Gasoline Terminals

a)

 No person may 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

 xng/l

 (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;

and

78.R

—36—

All

and

 vapor return lines are equipped

with

fittings

which

 are vapor tightT;

and

~j

 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)

 Emissions of organic material from bulk gasoline

terminals shall be determined by the procedure

described

 in EPA—450/2—77—026,

 Appendix A,

as

revised

 from time to time,

 or by any other

equivalent procedure approved by the Agency.

c)

 Bulk gasoline terminals were required to take

certain actions

 to achieve compliance which are

summarized

 in Appendix C.

d)

 The 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 exceeding 18

 inches of

water and vacuum from exceeding

 6 inches of

water

 as measured

 as close

 as possible

to

the vapor hose connection; and

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

2l5.582(d)(l)(A)T;

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

78-316

—37—

which exceeds the limits of subsection

(d)(l)(A)

(B).

Section

 215.583 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

a)

 Subject

 to subsection

 (b), no person shall cause or

allow the transfer of gasoline from any delivery

vessel

 into any stationary storage tank at a

gasoline dispensing facility unless:

1)

 The tank

 is equipped with a submerged loading

pipe;

and

2)

 The vapors displaced

 from the storage tank

during

 filling are processed by a vapor control

system that includes one

 or more of the

following:

A)

 A vapor ~a~anee collection system that

meets the requirements of subsection

+f~(d)(4);or

B)

 A refrigeration—condensation system or any

other system approved by the Agency that

recovers at least

 90 percent by weight of

all vaporized organic material from the

equipment being controlled~ and

C)

 The delivery vessel displays the

appropriate sticker pursuant to the

requirements of Section 215.584(b)

or

 (d).

b)

 The requirements of subsection (a)(2)

 shall not

apply to transfers of gasoline to

 a stationary

storage tank at a gasoline dispensing facility if:

1)

 The tank

 is equipped with a floating roof or

other system of equal

 or better emission

control

 as approved

 by the Agency;

2)

 The tank has a capacity of less than 2000

gallons and

is

 in place

 and operating before

January

1,

 1979;

3)

 The tank has a capacity of less than 575

gallons;

or

4)

 The tank is not located

 in any of the

 following

counties:

 Boone,

 Cook,

 DuPage,

 Kane,

 Lake,

Madison,

 McHenry, Peoria,

 Rock Island,

St.

Clair, Tazewell, Will or Winnebago.

—38—

Subject

subsection

(b),

each

owner

gasoline

dispensing

 facility shall:

1)

Install

all

control

systems

and

make

all

process modifications required by subsection

(a);

2)

 Provide

 instructions to the operator of the

gasoline dispensing facility describing

necessary maintenance operations and procedures

for prompt notification of the owner

 in case of

any malfunction of a vapor control system;

and

3)

 Repair,

 replace or modify any worn out or

malfunctioning component

 or element of design.

d)

 Subject

 to subsection

 (b), each operator of a

gasoline dispensing facility and each delivery

vessel operator shall:

1)

 Maintain and

 operate each vapor control

 system

in accordance with the owner’s instructions;

2)

 Promptly notify the owner

 of any scheduled

maintenance

 or malfunction requiring

replacement

 or repair

 of a major component of

a

vapor control

 system;

end

3)

 Maintain gauges, meters or other

 specified

testing devices

 in proper working orderT;

4)

 Operate the vapor

 collection system and

delivery vessel unloading points in

 a manner

that prevents:

reading

equal

greater

than

100

percent

the

lower

explosive

limit

(LEL

measured

 as propane)

 when tested

in

accordance

with

the

procedure

described

EPA 450/2—78—051 Appendix B,

and

B)

 Avoidable leaks of liquid during

the

filling of storage tanks;

and

5)

 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) (4) (A).

Any

de~very

veeee~ e~?cpped for

vapor

rerovery

~se

vapor

eoritre~

eyetem

eha~

dee~4gned and

—39—

ma~nte~me~

 to be vapor t4ght at aH t~meedt~r~ng

norma’

eperat~on

end

cheH

not

ref~~ed tn

~ne~e

ether

thent

A bu~kgeeo~neterm~na~

 that eomp~eewtth the

req~rementeof Seet4on

 5~S8~ter

~ bt~kgaeo~nep’ant that eomp~eew4~ththe

reqtm~rementeof Seet~on 5~8~tb~

Repeal

f~

 A vapor be~enee5yetem!~ehai~4ne1~dethe fo~ew4ng

eomnportentet

vapor

spaee

eenneet4on

the

etet4enary

etorege

 tanit

that

egt~4pped w4th

fitt4nga

wh~ehare vapor t~ghtt

A eenneeting pipe or hoce that ~e

eqt~pped wtth

f~tt4ngewhteh are vapor tight

and

eqt~pii~ent

that ensures that

the

pipe or hose ~s aenneeted

before

gaeo~ne

can

trensferredt

and

vapor

space

eonrieet4en

the

de~very

vesse’

that

egu~pped w4th

f~tt~nge whteh

are

vapor

t~ghte7

Repeal

g

e)

 Gasoline dispensing facilities were required

 to take

certain actions to achieve compliance which are

summarized

 in Appendix C.

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

 Shall have

 its hatches closed at all times

during

unloading

operations,

unless

top

vapor

recovery

system

used

Shall

not

internally

exceed

gauge

pressure

inches

water

vacuum

inches

water

78-319

—40—

Shall

designed

and

maintained

vapor

—

tight

all

times

during

normal

 operations

~j

 Shall

 not be refilled

 in Illinois at other

than:

bulk

gasoline

terminal

that

complies

with

the

requirements

Section

215.582

bulk

gasoline

plant

that

 complies with

the

requirements

 of Section 2l5.581(b)(1)

and

 (2).

Shall

 tested annually in accordance with the

pressure—vacuum

test

procedure

 described in EPA

450/2—78—051

Appendix

A.

 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:

~j

 A pressure drop of

 no more than three

inches

water

five

minutes;

and

vacuum

drop

than

three

inches

water

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

operator

 delivery vessel shall:

 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

78-320

—41—

vessels

must

display

sticker,

decal

 stencil

approved

the

state

where

tested

 or comply with

the

requirements

Subsection

(b).

All

such

stickers, decals or

 stencils shall

 be displayed no

later

 than December

 31, 1987.

ORDERED.

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

the

Illinois

 Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

the

c’~f~-

day

______________,

 1987,

 by a vote

of

 ~,—D

/L_~

Dorothy

Znn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

78-321