ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

22,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

VOLATILE ORGP~NICMATERIAL

)

 R82-14

EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY

)

SOURCES:

 RACT III

ADOPTED RULE

 FINAL ORDER

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

B.

 Forcade):

This matter

 came before the Board

on

 a series

 of proposed

amendments

to

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code Par

 215, Organic Material

Emission Standards and Limitations,

 for the control

 of the

pollutant ozone.

 All of

 the proposed amendments addressed some

aspect

 of the existing regulations controlling volatile organic

material

 (“VOM”)

 emissions from coating operations.

 Amendments

to

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code Sections 211.122,

 215.204,

 215.205 and

215.207 were considered

 in the instant opinion and order.

 Merit

hearings on the proposed amendments were held on December

 2—3,

1985; March 20—21,

 1986; August

4,

 1986;

 August

7,

 1987;

September 3—4,

 1986; October

30,

 1986;

 and November

7,

 1986.

Hearings regarding the Economic Impact Statement

 (EcIS)

for

Sections 215.204 and 215.207 were held on May

 8 and 21,

 1987.

Final merit

 evidence was also accepted at these hearings.

The

record closed on June

30,

 1987.

This is one of

 a series

 of Board actions directed at

promulgating rules implementing reasonably available control

technology

 (“RACT”)

 for the control

 of ozone precursors from

existing major stationary sources

 (emissions greater than 100

tons/year).

 The implementation of RACT in non—attainment areas

for ozone

 is required as

 a part of

 a federally approvable

 state

implementation plan

 (“SIP”)

 under the federal Clean Air Act

(“CAA”)

 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

 Section 172 of the CAA

requires

 that RACT be implemented at existing stationary sources

in the non—attainment areas

 of those states needing an extension

from the 1982 deadline until 1987 to achieve the air quality

standard

 for ozone.

 Illinois

 is such a state, having requested

the extension

 in its 1979 and 1982 SIP.

The definition of RACT

 is contained

 in 40 CFR 51, along with

the requirements for

 a federally acceptable SIP.

 However, the

specific parameters of what constitutes reasonably available

controls,

 and, therefore,

 the parameters which the states must

 adopt to insure that RACT

 is implemented,

 are not.

 Instead, the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

 (“USEPA”) publishes

a series

 of documents entitled “Control Technique Guidelines”

(“CTGs”).

 Each

 of the CTGs,

 which are summaries

 of industry

84—745

—2—

specific case studies,

 contains the means and the degree of

control which the tJSEPA requires the state

 to adopt categorically

as part of its SIPs

 in order

 to have an acceptable SIP.

 Failure

to adopt rules identical

 to those presented

 in the CTGs,

 or other

ones demonstrated by the individual state

 as comparable, can mean

that the state will have an inadequate SIP, which

 in turn can

trigger the sanction provisions

 of the CAA found at Sections 110,

113 and 176

 (42 (J.S.C.A.

 7410,

 7413,

 7506).

 While the mandate

for sanctions

is

 contained

 in the CAA,

 the mandate to adopt the

CTGs or otherwise demonstrate a state rule

 to be comparable

is

not.

It

 is not even contained

 in the federal regulations,

but

instead

 is articulated

 in the “General Preamble for Proposed

Rulemaking and Approval of State Implementation Plan Revisions

 for Non—Attainment Areas”

 (44 FR 20372).

RACT regulations controlling VOM emissions from coating

operations were adopted

 in the first RACT proceeding, R78—3,4,

RACT I,

 (35 PCB 35—75, July

12,

 1979).

 The rules at issue today,

Sections 211.122,

 215.204,

 215.205 and 215.207, address Emission

Limitations from Manufacturing Plants, Alternative Emission

Limitations and Internal Offset, respectively.

 The proposed

amendments to these sections are intended

 to correct certain

alleged deficiencies

in

 the rules

 in order

 to reflect RACT and,

in part,

 to respond

 to new guidance from the USEPA.

Additionally,

 in the course

 of the proceeding,

 several site—

specific amendments were proposed by industrial facilities

in

response to the proposed amendments

 to Section 215.204 and

215.207.

 Proposed amendments to each section are addressed

separately,

 below.

 However, certain conceptual elements of the

proposed amendments are interrelated.

 Such interrelationships

are noted where possible.

 The Board adopted the First Notice

Opinion and Order on July 16,

 1987.

I.

 Section 215.205:

 Alternative Emissions Standards

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 (“Agency”),

in

its original regulatory proposal initiating the R82—14 proceed-

ing, sought to amend Section 215.205 as adopted

 in R78—3,

 4, RACT

I

 (Ex.

1).

 Section 215.205 provides alternatives to the VOM

limitations for surface coating operations contained

 in Section

215.204,

 by specifying emission standards based on add—on control

equipment performance.

 Section 215.205 specifies minimum

destruction efficiencies and overall control equipment

efficiencies.

 Overall control efficiency

 is the product of

the

capture efficiency and the destruction efficiency.

 When the

existing Section 215.205 was reviewed by USEPA

 as an amendment to

the SIP,

 it found the rule to be possibly deficient.

 The Agency

agreed

 to undertake

 a study evaluating achievable capture

efficiency and submit any necessary amendments to Section 215.205

to the Board, thereby,

 acquiring conditional approval

 of that

portion of the SIP (45 FR 1147 at 11482;

Ex.

2).

 This study,

prepared by the Radian Corporation, was submitted as Exhibit No.

84—746

—3—

11.

 The Agency’s proposed amendments

 to Section 215.205 were

based

 on this study.

Proposed Section 215.205 was inadvertently omitted from the

Board’s August 10,

 1984, First Notice Order,

due

to

 a perceived

nexus between

 it and

 the anticipated amendments

 to Section

215.207.

 On May 30,

 1985,

 the Board proposed the Agency’s

amendments

 to Section 215.205 for first notice publication.

The

Agency further amended proposed Section 215.205 on November

22,

1985

 (Ex.

 87).

 Additional hearings regarding

 this rule were held

on December

2,

 1985,

 and March

20,

 1986, at the request

 of the

Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry (CAd).

The amendments proposed by the Agency to Section 215.205

were based on the Radian Study

 (Ex.

 11).

 The Agency proposed to

increase the overall control efficiency required at the process

equipment for

 all types

 of surface coating facilities regulated

under Section 215.204 from 75

 to 81,

 except for can coating.

No change was proposed for can coating operations using add—on

controls because the control efficiency at these sources remained

undetermined by

 the study.

 The Radian Study found that

a

reasonably available collection efficiency ranged between

 91 and

94 percent for paper coaters.

 Based

 on this,

the

 81 percent

overall control efficiency figure was proposed

for

 the remaining

surface coaters.

 The Agency’s amended proposal of November

22,

1985, added language

 to make

 it clear that the overall emission

reductions

 to be achieved when afterburners are used are

75

percent for the can coating category and

 81 percent for all other

categories of sources subject to Section 215.204.

The USEPA had indicated its willingness

 to accept

regulations consistent with the Radian Study

 (Ex.

88,

 49 FR

20522).

 The USEPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressed

several

 “conditions relating

 to the Illinois SIP” including the

conditional approval

 of this regulation.

 In that notice, USEPA

extended the date

 for satisfying

 this condition to July 31,

 1984.

CACI opposed the proposed amendment and argued that the

Radian Study provided an insufficient factual basis for adopting

the Agency’s proposal because the full spectrum of coating

operations were not studied.

 CACI argued that only the paper

coating category was studied and that not all Illinois paper

coaters were included.

 CACI asserted

 that this provides an

insignificant sample size (P.C.

 73).

 CACI provided no evidence

that the level

 of control

 in the Agency’s proposed amendment was

technically infeasible or economically unreasonable.

 Addition-

ally, CACI pointed out the general problem of measuring capture

 efficiency and criticized certain collection efficiency

assumptions made in the Radian Study regarding paper

 coaters

outside

 of Illinois

 (P.C.

 73).

84—747

—4—

In response, the Agency presented additional evidence

regarding the propriety of the

 81 percent overall control

efficiency and clarified how efficiencies could be calculated and

measured

 in the context of

 a stack test

 (Ex.

 95(a)

 and (b),

Ex.

97(a)

and

 (b)).

The Board was not persuaded by CACI’s arguments.

 First,

the

results of the Radian Study support the “presumptive norm”

of

81

percent

 in the earlier coating CTG.

 Second,

 while it may

be

preferable

 to work from

 a state of perfect knowledge,

it

 is not

always possible in the context of

 a regulatory proceeding.

 It is

true that the Radian Study did not examine every coating

operation throughout Illinois.

 However,

 that

 is not necessary in

this context.

 The Board was presented with sufficient evidence

that for most coating operations,

 81 percent

is

 a reasonable

number.

 The Board was presented with no evidence to the

contrary.

 Third, while CACI pointed out alleged defects

in

the

Radian Study,

 these “defects” were not incorporated

 in the

proposed amendments to Section 215.205.

 For example, CACI

criticized

 the 100 percent capture efficiency assumption in the

Radian Study’s

 review of non—Illinois coating facilities.

However,

 the proposed rule only requires 90 percent capture

efficiency.

 Fourth,

 the proposed amendment to Section 215.205

is

not even

 as stringent

 as the results

 of the Radian Study could

support.

 Focusing on the collection efficiency at Illinois paper

coating facilities,

 the study determined that

 a reasonably

available collection efficiency ranged between

 91 and

94

percent.

 The proposed amendment provides an added cushion

through the

 81 percent overall efficiency requirement which

translates

 to only a 90 percent capture requirement.

As

 a final

matter,

 if there are facilities

 in Illinois that,

 due to special

circumstances, cannot comply with the proposed amendment,

variance and site—specific regulatory relief are available under

Illinois law.

The Board

 found

 that the proposed amendments

to

 Sectioji

215.205 constitute

RACT

 and, therefore, proposed this rule for

first notice.

 The Board noted that this action would help to

 remedy any possible SIP deficiencies and avoid sanctions under

the CAA.

II.

 Section 215.204

—

 Emission Limitations for Manufacturing

Plants

Section 215.204 prescribes VOM emission limitations for an

array of coating process categories.

The

 limitations

 of Section

215.204

 are expressed

 in terms of kg/i or lb/gal

 of VOM,

excluding water, delivered

 to the coating applicator.

 Some of

the coating process categories specify a transfer efficiency.

The Agency’s proposed amendments to Section 215.204 would require

the exclusion of

 certain organic solvents exempted from the

definition of VOM from the calculation

 of the emission

84—748

—5—

limitations.

 This Agency proposal was filed on March

13,

 1986,

and amended on July 25,

 1986.

 Hearings regarding this proposal

were held on March 20,

 1986;

 August

4

 and 7,

 1986;

 September

 3—4,

1986;

 October 30,

 1986;

 and November

7,

 1986.

 The Department

of

Energy and Natural Resources

 (“DENR”)

 filed

 an Economic Impact

Study

 (EcIS)

 on March 13,

1987

 (Ex.

 142).

 EcIS hearings were

held on May

 8 and

21,

 1987.

The rationale for the Agency’s proposal

 to exclude certain

compounds that are specifically exempted from the definition

of

VOM involves some review of past RACT regulations and their

development over time.

 The original language for Section 215.204

was adopted

 as part of the RACT

 I proceeding

 (R78-3,4) and the

definition of VOM at that time did not exclude any compounds

which are liquids at room temperature capable of being used as

solvents

 in coatings.

 In the original definition of VOM, only

methane and ethane, which are gases

 at room temperature, were

excluded as being negligibly photochemically reactive

 Their

exclusion had

 no effect on volume calculations under Section

215.204.

However,

 in the RACT II proceeding

 (R80—5)

 and this RACT III

proceeding

 (R82—l4), other compounds which

 are liquids capable of

being used as coating solvents have been exempted from the

definition of VOM because they are negligibly photochemically

reactive.

 Methylene chloride and 1,l,l,—trichloroethane were

excluded

 in RACT II and seven more compounds were excluded in

RACT

 III.

 The Agency contended that since these compounds do not

contribute

 to emissions of VOM,

it

 is neáessary to subtract their

volume from the volume of coating

in

 the same way that the volume

of water

 is subtracted from the volume of coating under

the

present regulations.

It

 is the Agency’s position that

 if this

subtraction were not done,

 then the numerical limitations

of

Section 215.204

 are circumvented.

 An unintended inequity exists

which favors coatings using the excluded compounds relative

to

water based coatings and high solids coatings

 (Ex.

 120, 132~and

135).

There are

 two basic methods

 by which exempt compounds can be

used

 to reformulate non—complying coatings,

 i.e.,

1)

 dilution,

and

 2) direct substitution for VOM.

 In the first method, the

coating

 is simply diluted by adding an exempt compound.

The

Agency contended that

 it does not make sense

 to allow greater

emissions from the additional gallons of coating applied when the

volume

 of solvent contributing

 to emissions of VOM

 is the same.

Thus,

 in simple dilution by adding an exempt compound, the exempt

compound should be

 treated

 as water,

 i.e.,

 as not contributing

to

emissions or coating volume.

In the second method, exempt compounds are substituted

for

solvents which would contribute emissions of VOM.

 Since the

compounds substituted

 for original solvent do not contribute

to

84—7 49

—6—

emissions of VOM the facility reduces

 its VOM emissions.

However, the volume of exempt compounds must still be subtracted

in determining allowable emissions in order

 to achieve

equivalency with the numerical limitation.

 The Agency argued

that the exempt compound should be treated as water since there

will be lower VOM emissions as well as lower coating volume.

To

the extent that the emissions have been reduced relative to the

coating volume,

 this will result

 in what the Agency called the

proper

RACT

 ratio.

 In the case of complete substitution of the

original solvent with exempt compound,

 the RACT ratio will be

zero since there are no volatile organic emissions which

 is again

equivalent with treating the exempt solvents as water.

It is the Agency’s position that retaining the volume

of

“excluded”

 compounds in the coating volume

 is inconsistent with

the limits

of

 Section 215.204, as they represent the use of

RACT.

 The limits

 of Section 215.204

 reflect

 a ratio between VOM

emissions and the solids contained in

 a coating.

 For example,

an

emission limit

 of 3.0 lb/gallon represents

 a coating with

approximately

 40 percent VOM and

 60 percent solids for

 a PACT

ratio

 of 2:3.

 When the volume of exempt compounds is included

in

the total volume of coating,

 the ratio of VOM to solids

 deviates

from the RACT ratio represented by the numerical limitation.

For

example,

 a coating might contain only 40 percent VOM,

 30 percent

solids,

 and 30 percent exempt compounds.

 In this case,

 the ratio

of VOM to solids

is

 4:3.

 Another way of making the comparison

would

be

 to say that for each gallon of

 solids in the complying

coating,

 2/3 gallon of VOM

 is allowed.

 However, with the second

example,

 for each unit

 of solids,

 4/3 gallon of VOM

 is allowed

which is

 twice as much VOM relative

 to the solids than would be

allowed by the complying coating.

 The Agency contended that any

coating with

 a ratio of VOM to solids greater than that of the

complying coating would not constitute RACT

 as defined by the

numerical limitations

 in Section 215.204.

In the extreme case

 of pure dilution, exempt compounds~night

be used to dilute

 a formerly non—complying coating so that

it

complies with the numerical limit

 of Section 215.204 but with no

reduction in actual VOM emissions from the coating.

 This

situation is the same as that which led to the exclusion of water

from the coating volume for purposes of Section 215.204.

In

order

 to assure that the limits of Section 215.204 do represent

a

coating equivalent to the PACT limitations,

 the volume of exempt

compounds must also

 be excluded from the total volume

 of coating.

The Agency contended that USEPA guidance on this subject

is

“quite clear”

 and cites an article written by USEPA employees,

regarding the appropriate method of calculation,

 tJSEPA’s

 “VOC

Data Sheet for Suppliers of Paints and Coatings” and an issue

of

USEPA’s “VOC PACT Clearinghouse Newsletter” which address this

issue

 (Ex. 120).

It

 is the Agency’s position that its proposed

amendment will not result in any substantive change

 in the

84—750

—7—

emission limitations

 of Section 215.204, but merely provides

“clarification”

 on the appropriate method of calculation (Agency

Response to Order,

May

21,

 1987).

The primary opposition to the proposed amendments

 to Section

215.204 has come from the Duo Fast Corporation

 (“Duo Fast”).

While Duo Fast and the Agency eventually came to agreement re-

 garding appropriate emission limitations for coatings for the

power driven fastener

 industry,

it

 is worthwhile reviewing Duo

Fast’s arguments.

 Essentially,

 Duo Fast contends that the

Agency’s proposal oversimplifies the realities of coating

chemistry and formulation.

 The consequence of emission

limitations based on this simplified view of coatings

 is that

compliance coatings are technically infeasible to apply,

 at least

in the power driven fastener

 industry.

 More specifically, Duo

Fast contended

 that there

 is no known coating chemistry that can

achieve compliance with the proposed change

(R.

 3390).

The Agency proposal was criticized

 for only “partially”

recognizing that water’s mass and volume should be excluded from

the regulations pertaining

 to organic materials.

 Also, Duo Fast

contends that the Agency’s testimony

 is flawed by stating

a

“ratio” of

 emissions

 to solids exists

as

 a part of RACT.

According to the Duo Fast argument,

 the amendment

 ignores the key

term:

 “delivered

 to the coating applicator.”

 According to one

witness, the Agency devised

 its ratio assuming that the coating

is delivered to the applicator

in

 a solvent—free state.

“The

 true

 volume

of

the

 solvated polymer

is

physically

and

 significantly

 different

as

delivered

to

the

 Coating

 Applicator.

 After

application

 to the substrate to be coated, the

mechanism

of

 solvent

 release

 occurs

and

solvent

 release

 continues

 until

it

is

 com-

plete.

In

a

 coating

 operation,

 generally

a

film

is

 formed

 which

 represents

 both

 volume

and

 mass

of

 solids.

It

is

 critically im-

portant

 to be aware that for different organic

polymeric

 resin

 systems,

 there

are

 differing

solvent release mechanisms and solvent release

rates.

How

is

 it valid

 to make an

 ‘after

the

fact’

 assumption

 regarding

 volume

 solids ap-

plied

 in the state

of

 a solvent free condition

when

the

 Rule

 makes

a

 very specific require-

ment

 specifying

the

 coating

 condition

as

‘delivered

to

 the Coating Applicator’.”

(R.

4659—4660).

Duo Fast also contended that the coating listed

 in the

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products of 4.3 lb VOM per gallon

is impossible

 to formulate and

 to utilize on Duo Fast equipment

or any other known

 technology

 of similar nature.

 Since Duo Fast

84—751

—8—

is required

 to use the cellulose ester resin polymer system in

its manufacturing process, the coating that would

 be required

to

meet the Agency’s description would

 be impossible to apply

(R.

4660—4661).

Ultimately, Duo Fast and the Agency came

 to agreement that

the power driven fastener industry,

 and Duo Fast

 in particular,

presented a unique

 situation that justified special emission

limitations.

 Duo Fast and the Agency proposed

 a further

amendment to Section 215.204, which provides PACT limitations for

power driven fastener coating.

 This proposal will be addressed

in Section

III

 of this opinion, further below.

 However,

 the net

effect

 of this amendment is to ameliorate any adverse impact

to

Duo Fast as

 a result

 of the Agency’s proposal

 to exclude exempt

solvents from the calculation of emission limitations.

It appeared from the record before

 the Board that the

Agency’s proposal

 to exclude exempt solvents from the calculation

of Section

 215.204 emission limitations

 is an appropriate method

of determining VOM emissions for

 a particular coating.

 The Board

noted that the proposed amendment will ensure that dilution with

exempt solvents will not be used as

 a method

 of compliance,

 just

as

dilution

with

water

currently

prevented.

Direct

substitution of VOM solvents with exempt solvents will continue

to be

 a permissible method of formulating compliant coatings.

Regarding Duo Fast’s conceptual arguments in opposition to

the proposed amendment,

 the Board made the following

observations.

 It ~appearsthat for Duo Fast’s specialized coating

process,

 the Agency’s proposal would create serious compliance

problems

 in terms of the practical realities of applying such

a

coating.

 However,

 this appears

 to be

 a unique situation not

necessarily experienced by the majority of coaters.

 It appears

that the unique circumstances of the power driven fastener

industry, and Duo Fast in particular, will be adequately

addressed by the special PACT emission limitation jointly

proposed by Duo Fast and the Agency.

 The record

 indicates that

only two facilities would have their compliance status affected

 by the Agency’s proposal.

 Both Duo Fast and Classic Finishing

Company have worked with the Agency and have formulated or are

in

the process

 of formulating specialized emission limitations that

reflect PACT for their unique coating processes.

 Consequently,

the Board believes that the Agency’s proposal

 is generally

a

sound and improved method of determining emissions from

coatings.

 In limited circumstances,

 it may create technical

feasibility problems for certain types of coating applications.

However, those rare situations are being addr~essedthrough

specific emission limitations tailored

 to the u~guecoating

process.

The practical effect of

 the Agency’s proposal will be

to

change the emission limitations currently in Section 215.204

for

84— 752

—9—

those coaters who utilize exempt solvents.

 While the amendment

clarifies

 the calculation method,

it

 is also apparent

 that some

of the applicable coating limitations are substantively

changed.

 However, this substantive change only affects the

compliance status

 of two facilities,

 which will

 be the subject of

specialized

 limitations.

 Therefore,

 the actual economic impact

of

 the proposal, when viewed

 in total,

 is very limited.

The

proposed amendment clarifies and tightens the calculation

of

emission limitations for coaters.

It

 is hoped that this

amendment will

 close a potential “loophole”

 in determining

compliance under Section 215.204.

The Board found that the proposed amendments to Section

215.204 constitute RACT and, therefore, proposed this rule for

first notice.

 The Board noted that this action would help to

remedy any possible SIP deficiencies and avoid sanctions under

the CAA.

III. Section 215.204(j)

—

 Power Driven Fastener Coating

During this proceeding,

 Duo Fast was identified as

potentially adversely impacted by the Agency’s proposed amend-

ments

 to Sections 215.204 and 215.207.

 Duo Fast participated

extensively

 in the hearings and presented testimony in opposition

to the general principles embodied

 in the Agency’s proposals,

as

well as

 testimony demonstrating that the proposal was

not

technically

 feasible, economically reasonable or PACT for Duo

Fast.

 the close of the merit record, the Agency proposed

amendments

 to Section

 2l5.204-(j), which would provide special

emission limitations

 for power driven fastener coating that

reflect PACT for

 this subcategory of miscellaneous metal coating

 (Agency Motion

 to Further Amend, December

10,

 1986).

 Duo Fast,

in

 its final comments

 in this matter,

 advocated adoption of the

Agency’s proposed 215.204(j)

 limitations

 in the event

 the Board

decides to adopt the Agency’s proposal to exclude exempt solvents

from the calculation

 of emission limitations

 in 215.204 and

215.207

 (Closing Statement of Duo Fast Corporation, June 30,

1987).

Duo

Fast

operates

facility

Franklin

Park

(Cook

County),

which manufactures

 a multitude of power driven fasteners,

 nails

and

power

driven

fastener

tools.

Duo

Fast

employs

approximately

1,100

people

this

facility.

Duo

Fast’s

distinct

and

unique

coating

operations

are

carried

out

large

number

conventional staple making machines and five newer multi—wire

staple making machines.

 (The term “staple” also includes certain

brad

and

finish

nail

fasteners.)

The

conventional

machines

apply

small

amounts

(i.e.,

less

than

1/2

pound

organic

emissions/hour,

total)

bonding,

lubricity

and

withdrawal

resistance

coatings

three

separate

stations.

The

multi—wire

machines

apply

somewhat

larger

amounts

single

multi—purpose

coating.

The

total

organic

emissions

the

conventional

84— 753

—10—

machines are approximately

 140 tons/year at present

 (see Emission

Report from Duo Fast,

 dated October

17,

 1986, Attachment

 10).

The total organic emissions

 of multi—wire machines are presently

about 50 tons/year

 and are limited to 80.3 tons/year by

 a permit

condition imposed

 to establish non—applicability

of

35

 Ill. Adm.

Code Part 203.

 In the absence

 of site—specific consideration for

Duo Fast,

 the changes proposed by the Agency to Section 215.204

would result

 in non—compliance of certain Duo Fast coating

operations.

Duo Fast presently appears

 to be

 in line—by—line compliance

 with the current emission limitations

 of Section 215.204 through

the use of combination materials which perform both adhesive and

coating functions and reformulation by substituting non—photo—

chemically reactive solvents for VOM5 (Closing Statement of Duo

Fast Corporation, June 30,

 1987).

 Before the development

of

combination materials,

 Duo Fast relied on the existing internal

offset rule to achieve compliance.

Duo Fast presented evidence of its efforts,

 over the years,

to reduce organic emissions by reformulation of its coatings,

as

well as process changes

 (Exs.

92,

93,

 125).

 The record also

contains considerable information on the uniqueness of Duo Fast’s

staple making equipment,

 its coating operation and the functions

which the coatings serve,

 as compared

 to other miscellaneous

metal parts and products coating operations.

 Unique features

include the high degree

 of automation,

 low rates

 of coating

application per applicat-or, high transfer efficiency,

 limited

curing

 time,

 lack

 of enclosure,

 role

 of bonding coating and need

for immediate function, end use of product,

 and specialization of

coating function

 in end use

 of product.

 Considering these

technological constraints,

 Duo Fast appears to have made

 substantial efforts to reformulate coatings to comply with the

present Section 215.204(j)

 by the principal means available,

use

of exempt organic compounds.

 However,

 the limit of organic

emission reduction achievable with this means also seems

 to have

been reached

 (P.C.

 99).

Duo

Fast

investigated

compliance

through

 the use of add—on

control

equipment

as

 an alternative

 to further reformulation

of

coatings

 to meet the new limitations that would

 be applicable

under the Agency’s proposed amendment to Section 215.204.

Duo

Fast had

 a detailed “Control Equipment Evaluation” prepared by

Yates

 & Auberle,

 Ltd.

 (Y&A).

 The evaluation considered combined

and separate control

 of conventional machines and multi—wire

machines using

 a catalytic

oxidizer,

thermal

oxidizer

with

high

efficiency

heat

transfer

 and an adsorption—oxidizer system.

Y&A

estimated that the cost effectiveness

 of the control equipment

necessary to achieve compliance would be $10,000/ton.

 The Agency

and EcIS both adjusted this figure but still

 came to the

conclusion that the cost was well above the levels usually

84—7 54

—11—

accepted

as

 PACT (approximately $2,000/ton)* (P.C.

99,

Ex.

 142).

Additionally,

 there are uncertainties regarding the actual

technical feasibility of the control systems costed—out by Y&A

in

its study.

 The emissions capture system may have

 to be revised

after

 a pilot study, which could increase the cost of compli-

ance.

 The extensive use of methylene chloride will lower the

organic emissions cited

 in the Y&A study.

 Costs will also be

added

 to the Y&A estimates to account for scrubbing

 of hydrogen

chloride

in

 the gas stream following the afterburner.

The Agency and Duo Fast also looked

 to similar facilities

throughout the country in order

 to determine what PACT might

be

for this specialized

 industry.

 Other major companies

 in the

power driven fastener industry appear to have been less

successful than Duo Fast

 in complying with PACT regulations and

are the subject of state and federal enforcement actions and

consent decrees setting stringent compliance deadlines

 (P.C. 99).

Many of

 these compliance deadlines have been unattainable

(Closing Statement of Duo Fast Corporation, June 30,

 1987).

The Agency has proposed

 a revision to 35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code

215.204(j)

 to specifically address organic material emissions

from Duo Fast’s coating operations.

 (Agency Motion to Further

Amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code Sections 211.122 and 215.204, December

10,

 1986.)

 This revision proposed specific emission limits,

in

pounds of organic material per gallon

 of coating,

 for four

distinct and unique coating operations at Duo Fast.

 It also

includes a reference for nail coating, Duo Fast’s other type of

operation,

 to present limits applicable

 to miscellaneous metal

parts and products coating.

 The proposal does not identify Duo

Fast by name,

 but rather applied

 to “Power Driven Fastener

Coating.”

 Duo Fast is believed

to

 be the only facility engaged

in such coating

 in Illinois,

 as the term is defined.

The Board proposed for first notice the proposed amendments

to Section 215.204(j),

 which provide special limitations

reflecting RACT for

 the power driven fastener

 industry.

The

Board found that Duo Fast had made

 a showing that the limitations

of Section 215.204 as modified by the Agency’s proposal

to

exclude exempt solvents would not be PACT for the power driven

fastener industry

 in Illinois.

 The Board concluded that the

record adequately supports special limitations that should be

federally approvable.

The Board notes that this PACT cost—effectiveness figure

is

a

rough estimate that does vary.

 Cost—effectiveness for RACT has

been expressed within the range of

 $1,800

—

 $2,500/ton by various

sources.

84—755

—12—

IV.

 Section 215.204(c)

—

 Specialty High Gloss Catalyzed Coating

Classic Finishing Company

 (“Classic”) was identified,

relatively late

 in this proceeding,

 as having its compliance

status affected by the Agency’s proposal to exclude exempt

solvents from the emission limitation calculations

 in Section

215.204.

 Classic operates a facility

 in Chicago (Cook County)

which provides specialty finishes to preprinted products on

a

job—shop basis.

 These coating and lamination processes fall into

the category

 of paper coating.

 Classic operates four solvent—

borne top coating lines and two UV coating lines.

 Classic has

achieved compliance with existing Section 215.204 through

reformulation of

 its solvent—borne top coating

 to contain 1,1,1—

trichloroethane, an exempt solvent,

 and through the use, where

possible,

 of solventless UV coating.

Classic presented evidence

 of its research and development

efforts to date which demonstrate that little further VOM

emission reductions are possible through further coating

reformulation or

 switching

to

tJV

coating.

 Water—borne coatings

have been investigated but are not available for this specialized

category of paper

 coating

(R.

 4840—4845).

 Add—on controls were

investigated but even preliminary engineering costs would exceed

the rough benchmark

 of $2,000/ton which

 is commonly used as

a

PACT guideline

(R.

 4935).

 Add—on controls would reduce VOM

emissions by approximately three tons/year at

 a minimum cost of

$8,000

 to $10,000

 tons/year

(R.

 4928—4931).

 The Agency’s

proposal to exclude exempt solvents from the calculation of

Section 215.204 limitations would mean that over 40

 of Classic’s

coating operations would be out of compliance with no realistic

method available to continue operations

(R.

 4843—44).

Because of the specialized nature

 of Classic’s coating

operations and job—shop business, recent significant VOM

reductions through reformulation and UV coating,

 the limited

prospect of further significant emission reductions, the high

cost

 of add—on controls and the relatively small amount of

emissions at issue the Agency proposed special VOM emission

limitations for “Specialty High Gloss Catalyzed Coating”

 (Agency

Motion

 to Further Amend,

 December

10,

 1986).

 Classic

 is believed

to be the only facility engaged

 in such coating in Illinois,

as

this term is defined.

 The Agency and Classic both agreed that

these proposed amendments to Section 215.204(c)

 better reflect

RACT for this special subcategory of paper coating.

The Board proposed for first notice the amendments to

Section 215.204(c) which provide special limitations reflecting

RACT for the specialty high gloss catalyzed coating industry.

The Board found that Classic had made

 a showing that the

limitations of

 Section 215.204

 as modified by the Agency’s

proposal to exclude exempt solvents would

 not be RACT for this

84—756

—13—

special category

 of paper coating

 in Illinois.

 The Board

concluded that the record adequately supports special limitations

that should

 be federally approvable.

V.

 Section 215.207

—

 Aggregation

of

 Emission Sources

The Agency proposed

 to amend existing Section 215.207,

Internal Offsets,

 by changing the method

 of calculation of VOM

from

 a volumetric basis to a solids basis,

 as well

as

to

generally revise the rule.

 The Agency proposed

 to amend Section

215.207 by:

1)

 changing the heading

of

 the section to make

it

more descriptive

 of the actual

 intent and

 to avoid confusion with

offsets under Part 203 and the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration

 (“PSD”) program;

 2) substituting language parallel

to Section 215.205

 in paragraph

(a)

 in order

 to reference the

emission limitations

 of Section 215.204;

 3) clarifying language

and use of abbreviations;

4)

 including

 a formula for converting

from lb/gal

 (from Section 215.204)

 to lb/gal solids, for the

purposes

 of calculating compliance to Section 215.207;

and

5)

amending the definition

 of the symbols

 B and

n

 as used

 in the two

formulae.

It is worthwhile

 to briefly review the history of Section

215.207 and the genesis

 of the Agency’s proposal.

 The internal

offset rule was adopted

 in the RACT

 I (R78—3,4) proceeding and

was conditionally approved by USEPA

 as a SIP revision

 (45 FR

11482,

Ex.

2).

 However, USEPA subsequently proposed

to

~disapprove the rule after

 finding an error

 in the specified

equation

(50

FR

 28226,

Ex.

 89, Attachment 1).

 The Agency

originally proposed to revise Section 215.207

 in the original

proposal which

 initiated the instant proceeding on June 29,

1982

(Ex.

1).

 The amendments to Section 215.207 were originally

proposed to make the Illinois regulation consistent with federal

policy.

 USEPA guidelines

 indicated

 a problem

 in calculating

equivalence when control equipment,

 rather than high solids or

water—based coatings, was used

 to achieve compliance.

 Therefore,

the amendments required calculation of emissions expressed in

terms

 of the mass

 of VOM per volume

 of solids consumed.

Early

 in the proceeding,

 the Agency found

 no plants using

Section 215.207 as

 a basis

 for compliance that would exceed the

limitations based

 on the revised calculation.

 However, sub-

sequently the Agency determined that there might be plants which

would

 not comply with the amended rule,

 if adopted.

 Consequent-

ly,

 the Agency recommended

 in its comments on the Board’s First

Notice Order

 of August,

 1984,

 that the Board defer action on this

section until the data on affected plants was reviewed

 (P.C.

57).

 On August 23,

 1985, the Agency filed

 a motion

to

 reopen the

record concerning, among other sections, Section 215.207,

 after

the Agency’s search for affected plants had been completed

 (Ex.

86).

 On November

22,

 1985, the Agency further amended proposed

84—757

—14—

Section 215.207

 (Ex.

87).

Hearings

were

held

 on the Agency’s

amended proposal on December

2,

 1985;

 March 20—21,

 1986; August

4

and

7,

 1986;

 September 3—4,

 1986; October

30,

 1986;

 and November

7,

 1986.

 The DENR filed an EcIS addressing,

 in part, proposed

amendments to Section 215.207

 on March 13,

1987

 (Ex.

 142).

 EcIS

hearings were held on May 8

 and 22,

 1987.

Section 215.207, both existing and as proposed

 to be

amended, provides

 an alternative means

 of compliance with the

emission limitations of Section 215.204 by offsetting overcomply—

ing VOM emission sources with undercomplying VOM emission

sources.

 For the purposes of illustration, suppose

 a coating

facility operates

 two coating lines.

 The first line

 is able to

“overcomply,”

 i.e.,

 it not only achieves,

 but surpasses the

applicable VOM emission limits and

 thus generates an emissions

credit.

 The second coating line is not

 in compliance but

operates

 in excess

 of the applicable VOM standards.

 Under

an

offset,

bubble

 or aggregation rule,

 the facility may

 be able to

come into compliance by balancing its “credits” for overcom—

pliance against the excess VOM emissions from its undercomplying

coating

line.

Section

 215.207 allows an alternative means

of

compliance with Section

215.204

 by aggregating emissions across

different coatings and coating lines

 at each facility.

Section

215.207

provides

 the framework,

 restrictions and

equations

 for calculating compliance through offsetting or

aggregating sources.

 Emission credits can be generated from

overcomplying coatings, add—on control equipment or even

elimination of certain VOM emission generating sources within

a

facility.

 Section 215.207 affects

 a variety of sources and

is

implemented

in

 a unique way at each facility.

 The rule allows

a

certain flexibility

 in complying with the emission limitations

of

Section 215.204 and represents

 a compromise between line—by—line

 compliance and technical and economic feasibility.

 At the state

level,

 Section 215.207 relates back to the limitations

 in Section

215.204 which represent RACT for various coating categories.

At

the federal

 level, the USEPA considers compliance under Section

215.207 to

 be within the scope

 of the federal Bubble Policy.

Compliance plans and permits for facilities

 located

 in areas

designated

 as non—attainment for ozone which are based on Section

215.207 must be submitted as SIP amendments

 to USEPA.

The

general

 rule itself

 is also

 a part of the SIP and any amendment

to the general rule requires amending the SIP.

The Agency,

 in support of

 its proposal, contended that USEPA

has found existing Section

 215.207 to be deficient because of

the

way

 in which the determination

 of allowable emission is made.

The present rule contains a mathematical formula based on the

total—volume of

 coating used,

 as distinguished from solids

present

 in the coating.

 Technically,

 this deficiency causes the

rule

 to give results

 in certain circumstances which are not

equivalent

 to the emission limitations

 of Section 215.204.

 This

84—758

—15—

is because the total—volume calculation does not consider the

two—fold effect

 of the

 limits of Section 215.204.

 Not only do

these limits reduce the amount of organic material

 in each gallon

of coating,

 but they also may reduce the total gallons

 of coating

which must be used.

 The less organic material or solvent

contained

in

 a coating, the more pigment, resin,

 binders, etc.,

commonly known as solids.

 Thus,

 fewer actual gallons

of

a

compliance

 coating will probably be needed than were used before.

The substantive change

 in the proposed rule was intended

to

correct this deficiency

 in calculation method.

 This correction

also necessitates the addition of

 a formula to convert the limits

of Section 215.204

 into equivalent solids—basis limits, and

development

 of the recordkeeping requirement to include data on a

solids—basis.

Section 215.207 has been considered deficient by USEPA

for

some period

 of time.

 The rule was originally submitted to the

USEPA

 in 1979,

 as part of

 Rule 205(n).

 Upon submission of

the

rule

 (now codified as 215.207)

as

 a part of proposed RACT II,

the

USEPA clarified the true deficiency of the rule:

 the equation

concerning

the

internal

offset

provision

contained

the

error

previously discussed.

 Hence,

 in order for the rule to be

approved as

 a SIP revision,

 it must conform with the consistently

endorsed method

 of solids—based calculations.

A further justification of the proposed amendment is that

the volume—based calculations now

 in place may lead

 to emissions

levels which are also potentially inequitable.

 The solids—based

calculations provide allowable emissions which are fixed and do

not change with differing compliance options

 (reformulation,

control equipment,

 etc.).

 However,

 it may

 be the case that

the

total—volume method will yield emissions limits which

 are not

equivalent

 to those specified

 in Section 215.204, depending upon

the compliance option chosen.

 Hence,

 the potential for inequity

is present,

 in that facilities choosing certain compliance

options may be allowed higher emissions than similar facilities

choosing less “advantageous” options.

Many facilities use Section 215.207 throughout the state.

However,

 only

 a handful of facilities were identified as possibly

having their compliance status affected by the proposed change

from volumetric to solids calculation.

 During the course of

these proceedings, Allied Tube and Conduit

 of Harvey, which had

been identified

 as having its compliance status affected by the

proposed

 rule change,

 achieved

 a technological breakthrough that

results

 in line—by—line compliance.

 Consequently,

 this facility

is no longer affected by the proposed change.

 Duo Fast utilized

existing

Section

 215.207 to

achieve

 compliance and would have

been affected by the proposed change.

 However, through a com-

bination of

 a technological break

 in the area of

 “combi—cements”

and the special proposed emission limitations for power driven

84—759

—16—

fastener coating,

 Duo Fast

 is no longer affected by the proposed

amendment.

The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company

 (3M) utilizes

Section 215.207

 to achieve compliance at its Bedford Park

facility.

 3M believed

 it could comply with the solids—basis

calculation but proposed

 a site—specific rule as an alternative

to proposed Section 215.207

 (Ex.

 98).

 By joint motion dated June

30,

 1987,

 the Agency and

 3M requested that the record remain open

until July 30, 1987,

 regarding the 3M site—specific proposal.

Consequently,

 the Board deferred action on 3M’s proposal pending

further informational development by

 the Agency and

3M.

The

impact of proposed Section 215.207 on

 3M was not addressed in the

instant opinion and order,

 but was similarly deferred.

 3M’s

proposed site—specific rule was addressed in the Board’s Opinion

and Order dated December

3,

 1987.

The primary argument against the solids—basis type of

calculation

 is made by Duo Fast regarding the nature

 of polymer

coatings wherein the solids are inextricably tied in with the

solvent

 (either VOM or exempt).

 Based on this,

 the Duo Fast

testimony of D.J. Kurr

 (R. 4659—4660) poses the question:

“How

is

 it valid

 to make

an

 ‘after

the

 fact’

assumption

 regarding volume

 solids

 applied

in

the state of

 a solvent free condition when the

Rule

 makes

a

 very

 specific

 requirement

specifying the coating condition as

 ‘delivered

to tFieCoating Applicator’?”

Duo Fast

has

presented

compelling

point,

as

 the solids based

calculation would apply to

 its unique polymer coatings.

 However,

the proposed special power driven fastener emission limitations

 proposed today appear

 to take this uniqueness

 into account.

There

is

 rio evidence

 in the record that the other facilities

 that

utilize Section 215.207 will

 be similarly affected by the

proposed change.

 The record does indicate that since the solvent

is finally released from the substrate on curing or drying,

the

Agency’s arguments for

 a solids—based calculation are still

valid.

 In terms

 of emission of VOM,

 the solids—based

calculations appear preferable to the existing volumetric method.

The Board found that the proposed amendments to Section

215.207 corrects an error

 in the existing

 rule and results

 in an

accurate calculation of PACT limitations.

 The Board proposed

this rule for first notice comment.

 The Board concluded that

this action would help to remedy any possible SIP deficiencies

and avoid sanctions under

 the CAA.

 In reviewing the Agency’s

proposal, the Board noted certain potential problems in the

current drafting of the rule.

 In the proposed Section

215.207(a),

 it states that “methods

 or procedures used

to

84—760

—17—

determine emissions of VOM under

 this Section shall be approved

by the Agency.”

 These methods and procedures

 are not specified

 and need to be addressed by

 the Agency.

 The Board expressed

concerns regarding the JCAR approvability of this language.

Section 215.207(a)

 also uses the term “selected coating lines”

to

replace the term “all coating lines.”

It

 is not clear what the

basis of the selection is or who selects the lines that will

be

subjected

 to the limitations

 of the section.

 The Board requested

the Agency to address this topic

 as well.

 The Board concluded

that based on the May 20,

 1987, Agency Response to Hearing

Officer Order,

 the definition for the term Ri

 in Section

215.207(c)

 should

 be changed

 as follows

 to be consistent with the

proposed interpretation of gallon of coating

 in Section 215.204:

R~

 the applicable volatile organic material

emission

 limit

 pursuant

to

 Section

215.204,

for

 a coating in Kg/i

 (lb/gal)

Additionally, the Board concluded that adding “volatile

organic material” before the word “emissions”

 in the definitional

terms EA

E~

 Ri and Si would help to clarify those terms

in

Section ~5.2t~9~c).

FIRST NOTICE HISTORY

On July 16,

 1987,

 the Board proposed regulatory amendments

to Section 211.122, 215.204,

 215.205 and 215.207 for first notice

comment which were published at

 11 111.

 Reg.

 12811 and

 12835,

August

 7, 198T.~The statutory 45—day comment period ended on

September 21,

 1987.

 The Board posed additional questions for the

participants

 to comment on through

 a hearing officer order,

 dated

August

 27, 1987.

 Non—substantive comments were received

 from the

Secretary of State’s Administrative Code Unit regarding form and

format of the proposed rules.

 Those changes were made at second

notice.

 Four substantive comments were received regarding the

proposed amendments.

In a letter filed September

22,

 1987, the Minnesota Mining

&

Manufacturing Company

 (3M)

 requested that the hearing officer

extend the first notice comment period for the proposed

amendments until October

10,

 1987.

 The Agency filed a motion to

deny 3M’s request on September

29,

 1987.

 The hearing officer

referred this matter to the Board as

 it would impact the timing

of

 the Board’s decision in this matter.

 The Board denied 3M’s

request.

 First,

 the Board determined that the request was

untimely,

 as the statutory 45—day comment period ended on

September

21,

 1987.

 Second, the Board concluded that

 to allow 3M

an additional opportunity to comment on not only the proposed

amendments,

 but the Agency’s timely filed comments

 as well, would

not

 be evenhanded

 or fair.

 Finally,

 the additional two to three

weeks delay that granting 3M’s request would cause was

unacceptable

 to the Board.

 The Board explained

 that

it

is

84—761

—18—

attempting

 to proceed with regulations controlling ozone

precursors

 as quickly as fairness and the requirements of the

Environmental Protection Act and the Administrative Procedures

Act permit.

 The federal deadline for achievement of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

 for Ozone

 is December

31,

 1987.

The

Board and the Agency have expended considerable efforts

to

promulgate final

 rules by that date.

 Further delay

 in this

proceeding could very well defeat that goal.

 The Board clarified

that the instant Opinion and Order did not address the site—

specific amendment proposed by 3M for

 its Bedford Park

facility.

 This action only addresses the proposed amendments to

the

 rules of general applicability.

 On December

3,

 1987,

3M

filed a Motion

 to Redocket its site—specific proposal.

The

motion was denied by the Board. The 3M site—specific proposal was

addressed

 in the Board’s Opinion and Order dated December

3,

1987.

The first commenter

 raised two issues regarding certain

language

 in the Opinion of July 16,

1987

 (P.C.

 115).

 First,

the

commenter asserted that the United States Environmental

Protection Agency’s

 (USEPA) position regarding defects in

existing Section 215.207 is not

 as clear

 as the Board’s opinion

may lead one

 to believe.

 The commenter suggested that the

existing rule was approved

 in 1980 by USEPA without condition.

However, even the commenter conceded that subsequent action by

USEPA,

 in the form of testimony

 in Board proceedings and formal

comment on the State’s RACT

 II package,

 does make USEPA’s

position clear.

 The Board conceded that the issue has been

debated

 in the context of this proceeding as well as

 in variances

and permit appeals.

 The Board concluded that while

 the issue may

not have been crystal clear in the early 1980’s,

 it certainly is

clear

 today.

 The Board found that the record in the proceeding

supports both the wisdom and necessity of modifying Section

215.207.

The commenter’s second

 issue was whether or not compliance

plans based on Section 215.207 need to be submitted to USEPA

as

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

 revisions under USEPA’s “bubble

policy”

 (P.C.

 115).

 The Board,

 itself,

 was concerned with these

issues and requested additional comments

 in the August 27, 1987,

Hearing Officer Order.

 It is apparent from the record before the

Board that USEPA’s position has fluctuated wildly on this

issue.

 The commenter accurately noted that USEPA’s policy “has

not been as clear as the opinion might be read

 to suggest.”

However, while this issue

 is obviously very important to

facilities presently utilizing Section 215.207 to achieve

compliance with PACT coating limitations,

it

 is tangential to the

issues presently before the Board

 in this proceeding.

 The Board

explained that

it

is

 in the process of amending its

regulations.

 The issue of how the rule will be implemented by

other agencies

 of government may or may not come before this

Board.

 The Board concluded

 that

 if and when such issues are

84—762

—19—

presented to the Board for adjudication,

 the wisdom and legality

of the rules’

 implementation can be appropriately addressed at

 that time.

The second commenter noted two typographical errors in the

proposed amendments to Section 211.122, the definition of “Power

Driven Fastener Coatings”

 (P.C.

 116).

 First,

 in line

 3 of the

definition

 “0.254

 inch” should read “0.0254 inch.”

 Second,

in

line 14

of

 the definition “Counsel” should

 be “Council.”

 These

corrections were made at second notice.

The third commenter responded to the questions posed

in

the

August 27,

 1987,

 Hearing Officer Order regarding

 the interpreta-

tion of the internal offset rule,

 Section 215.207,

 and the

applicability of the USEPA federal bubble policy.

 The commenter

utilizes existing Section 215.207 to achieve compliance with

the

PACT coating limitations.

 The proposed amendment to Section

215.207 will not impact the commenter’s compliance status.

However,

 the commenter is the subject

of

 a USEPA enforcement

action.

 The commenter’s Section 215.207 compliance plan was

never submitted as

 a SIP revision to USEPA.

 As previously noted,

USEPA’s position on the necessity of submittal of such permits as

SIP revisions has been confusing and inconsistent.

 The commeriter

urged that the Board not take any action

 to revoke or qualify the

protections available under Section 215.207 on which many

 companies have relied.

 The Board noted that by amending Section

215.207,

it

 is changing the content of the

 rule.

 However, the

Board held that the principles, requirements and conditions

embodied

in

 the, December

6,

 1986,

 federal

 “bubble policy” are not

expressly incorporated

 in the language of the amended rule.

The

Board noted that

 it may be argued that consistency with the

federal “bubble policy” may be necessary to comply with federal

law or policy.

 The Board, however, made no such holding.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 (Agency) filed

comments responding

 to questions posed both in the July 16,

 1987,

first notice opinion and

 in the August

27,

 1987, Hearing Officer

Order

 (P.C.

 119).

 The Agency also supplemented the record with

various newspaper articles and documents regarding ozone

attainment and the SIP process.

The Agency responded

 to the Board’s request for

justification

 of the proposed language

 in Section 215.207(a)

 that

reads:

 “methods

 or procedures used to determine emission of VOM

under this Section shall be approved by the Agency.”

 First,

the

Agency responded that this language was copied from Section

215.205 for consistency and also because

 it has already been

found acceptable by the Board

 for Section 215.205.

 Second,

 this

language does not authorize the Agency to change existing test

methods already adopted by the Board.

 Third,

 this language

enables the Agency to review elements of compliance procedures

not otherwise addressed by Board rules,

and

 to formalize

84—763

—20—

procedures

followed

 or formalize Agency acceptance of

procedures submitted by

 a company,

 in permit conditions.

The

Agency noted

 that these procedures address items that the Agency

must examine

 in the permitting process

 in order

 to determine the

adequacy of the application and the compliance status of

the

company, such as selected coating

 lines, calculation procedures,

frequency of

 sampling, verification

 of control equipment

efficiency,

 extent

 of material usage records, nature

of

documentation on coating VOM content,

 and availability

of

records.

 The nature of these procedures can vary greatly

depending upon the particular circumstances

 of a company,

 e.g.,

the

margin

compliance,

the

equipment

present,

and

the

nature

existing

production

records.

Fourth,

the

absence

prior

review

the

Agency

the

permitting

process,

company

could

believe

 that

 it was satisfying the requirements of Section

215.207.

 However, the Agency could consider the company not to

be in compliance for failure

 to adequately address

the

requirements

 of Section 215.102, Section 215.207(a),

 Section

215.207(c),

 or Section 215.208.

 The Agency’s proposed language

protects a company by drawing attention

 to the fact that the

methods and procedures must be presented

 to and approved by the

Agency.

 The Agency reminded the Board that Agency determinations

made

in

 the permitting process are subject

 to appeal and review

by the Board in

 a permit denial appeal.

The Board found the Agency’s justification persuasive.

The

implementation of Section 215.207 as

 a compliance option varies

with each and every facility.

 Section 215.207 is intended to

provide

 a flexible alternative

 to line—by—line compliance with

the emission limitations

 of Section

 215.204, with certain

restrictions.

 Inherent in its approach is

 a requirement of

flexibility

 in Agency review and implementation.

 The Board

concluded that it

 is not possible

 to write a coherent

 rule that

envisions all contingencies and potential applications.

Therefore,

 in the limited context

 of these

 rules,

 the Board

concluded

 that the “shall be approved by the Agency” language

is

appropriate and necessary.

Concerning the Board’s

 request for clarification regarding

the use of the language “selected coating lines”

 in proposed

Section 215.207(a),

 the Agency responded that the selection of

the coating lines

 is made by the permit applicant.

 The intended

basis of

 the selection is for the company

 to demonstrate

compliance with

 a minimum number of coating lines.

 The Board

acknowledged this clarification.

In the July 16,

 1987, Opinion,

 the Board suggested certain

modifications

 in Section 215.207 to the definitions of R~,E~JJL,

EACTand S~. The Agency concurred with these suggested changes as

they are consistent with the Agency’s intent and help clarify the

rule.

 These changes were made at second notice.

84—764

—21—

response

questions

posed

the

August

27,

1987,

Hearing

Officer

Order,

the

Agency

stated

that

permits

based

Section 215.207 have been issued.

 Of these,

 46 are

 in ozone non—

attainment

areas

and

are

attainment

areas,

including

four

McHenry

Will

County.

The

Agency

has

not

submitted

any

the permits based

 on existing Section 215.207

 to the USEPA

as

formal amendments or

 revisions

 to the Illinois SIP

 for ozone.

The Agency contended that the proposed amendments to Section

215.207 are “pending” before USEPA.

Commenting generally about the language of Attachment

 3 and

the federal Emissions Trading Policy,

 the Agency reminded the

Board that Section

 215.207 was conditionally approved by USEPA

in

1980.

As

 an approved rule that

 is part of Illinois’

 SIP, any

company

 can avail themselves of the

 regulation.

 The Agency’s

proposed Section 215.207 was sent to USEPA for parallel

processing

as

 a SIP revision on September

5,

 1985.

 The Agency

noted that

 if the Agency’s proposed Section 215.207 is adopted by

the Board,

 USEPA should approve

it

since

 it corrects the flaw in

the regulation

 (volumetric calculations) which has been

identified

 by USEPA.

 The Agency concluded that companies should

continue

able

avail

themselves

this

regulation

the

future.

The Agency conceded that the amendments to Section 215.207

presently

pending

not

conform

the

federal

“bubble

policy”

of

 December

6,

 1986.

 However,

 the Agency did not suggest that

Section

215.207

further

modified

this

time.

The

Agency

contended

that

the

amendments

presently

pending

will

correct

long—standing deficiency and will

 be responsive to USEPA’s

present

concerns.

The

Agency

suggested

that

Section

215.207

may,

some

future

time,

need

further

modified

consistent

with

federal

policy.

The

Agency

expressed

the

opinion

that

the

amendments to Section 215.207 pending before the Board would be

approved by USEPA.

 If and when the Agency receives

 a SIP

deficiency notice from USEPA regarding consistency with the

federal

 “bubble policy”,

 it will consider further amendment.

The Board concluded that

 the Agency’s suggested course

of

action was

 a prudent one under the circumstances.

 The Board

noted that the federal “bubble policy”

 is relatively new and its

incorporation or implementation in presently pending amendments

to Section 215.207 is not presently at issue

 in this

proceeding.

 The Board concluded that the proposed amendments

will help fulfill the state’s obligations under the Clean Air Act

and avoid federal sanctions.

 The Board,

 therefore,

 directed the

Clerk

 of the Board

 to submit the proposed amendments to Sections

211.122, 215.204,

 215.205 and 215.207 for second notice review by

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

84—765

—22—

SECOND NOTICE CHANGES

On October

1,

 1987, the Board adopted an Opinion and Order

sending the proposed amendments to Second Notice

 for review by

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

 (“JCAR”).

 The Second

Notice period commenced on October

29,

 1987.

 The JCAR staff

suggested several non—sbustantive

 changes, all

 of whichh have

been incorporated

 in the Final Notice Order.

 At its November

19,

1987, meeting, JCAR formally objected

 to the amendments to Parts

211 and 215 insofar

 as the regulatory flexibility analysis

is

concerned.

 The JCAR objection was based on its belief that “not

applicable” was an inappropriate response to the regulatory

flexibility analysis question.

The Board, by Resolution adopted today,

 has declined to

modify the rulemaking so as

 to comply with the JCAR objection.

Although

 “not applicable” may not be an appropriate response,

the

Board believes that the response will have no adverse effect and,

further, that final action must be taken

 to comply with deadlines

imposed by the Clean Air Act

 (42 CFR U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

Notice of

 the refusal

 to modify will

 be submitted

 to JCAR and to

the Secretary of State for publication

 in the Illinois Register.

Also at its November 19,

 1987 meeting, JCAR discussed the

issue

 of incorporation by reference of federal guidelines

 in the

amendments

 to Part 211.

 Rather than issuing an objection, JCAR

 voted

 to postpone further consideration

 of this issue to allow

the Board

 to submit for its approval, pursuant to Section 6.02(b)

of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act

 (“IAPA”), the

guidelines

 of the United States General Services Administration

and Federal Housing Administration that are incorporated by

reference in Section 211.122 of

 the Board’s rules.

 On December

1,

 1987,

 the Board sent the appropriate documents that are

incorporated by reference

 in Section 211.122

 to JCAR for

approval.

 On December

17,

 1987, JCAR approved incorporation by

reference of

 the guidelines

of

 the United States General Services

Administration and Federal Housing Administration.

 JCAR’s

approval on December

17,

 1987 was

 in response to

 the Board’s

submittal of these documents pursuant to Section 6.02(b)

 of the

IAPA.

 Therefore,

 the Board has modified Section 211.122 of

the

Board’s

 rules so as

 to “fully identify the incorporated matter by

location and date,

 and has stated that the guideline or standard

does not include

 any later amendments or editions”

 in accordance

with Section 6.02(b)

 of the IAPA and

1

 Ill. Adm. Code Section

220.780.

All

 of the non—sbustantive changes recommended by JCAR have

 been adopted.

 Specific changes are as follows:

1.

To

 include

at

the

end

of

the

 second

sentence

in

 Section

 215.207(a)

 “in

accordance with 35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 201”;

84—766

—23—

2.

To

 include

a

 hyphen

in

the

 division

of

the

word

“subsection”

Section

215.204(c) (1);

include

hyphen

the

division

the

 word

 “fabrication”

in

 Section

215.204(j) (4) (E)

;

and

4.

To

 word

 Section

 215.207(c)

to

 read

 “as

used in subsections

(a)

and

 (b).”

ORDER

The Clerk

 of the Pollution Control Board

 is directed to

submit the following adopted rules

 to the Secretary of State for

Final Notice:

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B:

 AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

 EMISSION STANDARDS

AND

LIMITATIONS

FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 211

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL 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

Section 211.122

 Definitions

“Power Driven Fastener Coating”:

 The coating of nail,

staple,

 brad and finish nail fasteners where such

tasteners are fabricated from wire or rod

 of 0.0254

 inch

diameter

 or greater, where such fasteners are bonded

into coils

 or strips,

 such coils and strips containing

a

number

 of such fasteners,

 which fasteners are manufac-

tured

 for use

 in power

 tools,

 and which fasteners must

conform with formal standards

 for specific uses estab—

lished by various federal and national organizations

including Federal Specification FF—N—lO5b of the General

84—767

—24—

Services

Administration

dated

August

23,

1977

(does

not

include

any

later

amendments

editions;

U.S.

Army

Armament

Research

 and Development Command, Attn:

 DRDAR—

TST, Rock

 Island, IL 61201), Bulletin UM—25d

of

 the U.S.

Department of Housing

 and Urban Development

—

 Federal

Housing Administration dated September

5,

1973

 (does not

include any later amendments

 or editions; Department of

HUD,

 547 W. Jackson Blvd.,

 Room 1005, Chicago,

IL

60606),

 and the Model Building Code of the Council

of

American Building Officials,

 and similar standards.

For

the purposes of this definition,

 the terms

 “brad” and

“finish nail”

 refer

 to single

 leg fasteners fabricated

in

 the same manner

 as staples.

 The application of

coatings

 to staple, brad,

 and finish nail fasteners may

be associated with the incremental forming of such

fasteners

in

 a cyclic or repetitious manner (incremental

fabrication) or with the forming of strips

 of such

fasteners as

 a unit from

a

 band of wires

 (unit

fabrication).

“Specialty High Gloss Catalyzed Coating”:

 commercial

contract finishing

 of material prepared

 for printers and

lithographers where the finishing process uses

a

solvent—borne coating,

 formulated with

 a catalyst,

in

a

~uantity

of

 no more than 12,000 gallons/year as

supplied, where the coating machines are sheet fed and

the coated sheets are brought

to

 a minimum surface

temperature of

190

 F., and where the coated sheets are

to achieve

 the minimum specular reflectance

 index of

65

measured

 at a

 60 degree angle with

 a gloss meter.

(Source:

 Amended

at

 111. Reg.

________,

 effective

___________

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

AIR

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

c:

 EMISSION STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS

FOR

STATIONARY

SOURCES

PART 215

ORGANIC

MATERIAL

EMISSION

STANDARDS

AND

LIMITATIONS

SUBPART

COATING

OPERATIONS

Section

215.202

Compliance

Schedules

215.204

Emission

Limitations

for

Manufacturing

Plants

215.205

Alternative

Emission

Limitations

215.206

Exemptions

from

Emission

Limitations

215.207

 ~r~a3~

 O?~e~&Compliance by Aggregation

 of Emission

Sources

84—768

—25—

215.208

Testing

Methods

for

Solvent

Content

215.209

Exemption

from

General

Rule

Use

Organic

Material

215.210

 Alternative Compliance Schedule

215.211

 Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas

215.212

 Compliance Plan

215.213

 Special Requirements for Compliance Plan

Section 215.204

 Emission Limitations

 for Manufacturing Plants

No owner

 or operator

of

 a coating line shall cause or allow

the

emission

volatile

organic

material

exceed

the

following

limitations

coating

materials,

excluding

water

and

any

compounds which are specifically exempted from the definition

of

volatile organic material pursuant to this Part, delivered to the

coating applicator:

a)

 Automobile or Light Duty Truck Manufacturing Plants

1)

 In Cook County

 kg/i

lb/gal

Prime coat

 0.14

 (1.2)

Prime surfacer coat

 0.34

 (2.8)

(Board Note:

 The prime surfacer coat limitation is

based upon

 a transfer efficiency of

 30 percent.

The prime surfacer coat limitation shall not apply

until December

31,

 1982.)

Top coat

 0.34

 (2.8)

(Board Note:

 The limitation

 is based upon a

transfer efficiency of

 30 percent.

 The top coat

limitation shall not apply until December

31,

1985.)

Final repair

 coat

 0.58

 (4.8)

(Board Note:

 The limitation shall not apply until

December

 31, 1985)

2)

 In Boone County

Prime Coat

 0.14

 (1.2)

Prime coat surfacer

 0.34

 (2.8)

Top coat

 0.34

 (2.8)

(Board Note:

 The top coat limitation shall not

apply

if

by December

31,

 1984,

 a limitation of 0.43

kg/l

 (3.6 lb/gal)

 is achieved and the top coat is

applied with

 a transfer efficiency of not less than

55 percent and by December

31,

 1986,

 the top coat

is applied with a transfer efficiency of not less

than 65 percent)

84—7 69

—26—

Final

 repair coat

3)

 In the remaining counties

Prime

coat

Prime surfacer coat

Top coat

Final

repair

coat

b)

 Can Coating

1)

 Sheet basecoat and

Overvarnish

0.34

(2.8)

2)

 Exterior basecoat

and overvarnish

 0.34

 (2.8)

3)

 Interior body spray

coat

 0.51

 (4.2)

4)

 Exterior

 end coat

 0.51

 (4.2)

5)

 Side seam spray coat

 0.66

 (5.5)

End

sealing

compound coat

 0.44

 (3.7)

c)

 Paper Coating

1)

 All paper coating except

as provided

 in sub-

section (c)(2)

 0.35

 (2.9)

2)

 Specialty High Gloss

Catalyzed

Coating

0.42

(3.5)

(Board Note:

 The These limitations shall not apply to

equipment used for both printing and paper coating)

d)

 Coil Coating

 0.31

 (2.6)

e)

 Fabric Coating

 0.35

 (2.9)

f)

 Vinyl Coating

 0.45

 (3.8)

g)

 Metal Furniture Coating

 0.36

 (3.0)

h)

 Large Appliance Coating

 0.34

 (2.8)

(Board Note:

 The limitation shall not apply

 to the use

of quick—drying lacquers for repair

 of scratches and

nicks that occur during assembly, provided that the

0.58

0.14

0.34

0.34

0.58

(4.8)

(1.2)

(2.8)

(2.8)

(4.8)

84—770

volume

 of coating does

 not exceed 0.95 liters

 (1 quart)

in any one eight—hour period)

i)

 Magnet Wire Coating

 0.20

 (1.7)

 Miscellaneous Metal Parts

and Products Coating

1)

 Clear coating

 0.52

 (4.3)

2)

 Air dries coating

 0.42

 (3.5)

3)

 Extreme performance

coating

 0.42

 (3.5)

4)

 Power driven fastener coating

A)

 Nail coating

 Refer

 to limits

in

(j)(l),

 (2),

(3)

and

(5)

B)

 Staple, brad and fin-

ish nail unit fabri-

cation bonding

coating

 0.64

 (5.3)

C)

 Staple, brad and fin-

ish nail incremental

fabrication lubri-

city coating

 0.64

 (5.3)

ID)

 Staple, brad and fin-

 ish nail incremental

fabrication withdrawal

resistance coating

 0.60

 (5.0)

E)

 Staple, brad and fin-

ish nail unit fabri—

catfon coating

 0.64

 (5.3)

45)

 All other

 co::.

~gs

 0.36

 (3.0)

(Board Note:

 The least restrictive limitation shall

apply

than

one

limitation

pertains

specific

coating)

k)

 Heavy Off—highway Vehicle

Products

1)

 Extreme performance

prime coat

 0.42

 (3.5)

84—77 1

—28—

2)

 Extreme performance

top coat—air dried

 0.52

 (4.3)

3)

 Final repair coat—

air dried

 0.58

 (4.8)

1)

 Wood Furniture Coating

1)

 Clear topcoat

 0.67

 (5.6)

2)

 Opaque stain

 0.56

 (4.7)

3)

 Pigmented coat

 0.60

 (5.0)

4)

 Repair coat

 0.67

 (5.6)

5)

 Sealer

 0.67

 (5.6)

6)

 Semi—transparent stain

 0.79

 (6.6)

7)

 Wash coat

 0.73

 (6.1)

(Board Note:

 The repair coat has overall transfer

efficiency of 30 percent;

 all others have an overall

transfer efficiency of 65 percent.)

(Source:

 Amended at

 Ill.

 Reg.

________,

 effective

)

Section 215.205

 Alternative Emission Limitations

Owners or operators of coating

 lines subject to Section 215.204

may comply with this Section,

 rather

 than with Section 215.204.

The methods or procedures used

 to determine emissions of organic

material under this sSection shall

 be approved by the Agency.

Emissions of volatile organic material from sources subject to

Section 215.204,

 are allowable,

 notwithstanding

 the limitations

in Section 215.204,

 if ~eh

eM4

 4er~s

~e eei~~&He~

 l~ye~ee~

~he

~

 methe~:

a)

 For those sources subject to Section 215.204(b),

the

emissions are controlled

 by Aan afterburner system which

provides: ~

~

 pe~eei~e? ~he em&~e~

~em

 ~he e~4i~g3~4~e

arts

 ~O pe~ee~e?

 ~he rte~Me~h&r~e

V~~e

 &~g~i~e

 me~5~1 e~~re~

 && ~e~e3~ee~~4b~e

e~bert~wh~eh

er~e~

~he ~

 ebtt~e~~e

 e~e~&~2e&

~e

 e~ber~

~

~

 we~e~e~

reduction

the

overall

emissions

volatile

organic material

 from the coating line,

and

84—772

—29—

2)

 Oxidation to carbon dioxide and water

of

90

of

the

nonmethane

volatile

organic

material

(measured

as total combustible carbon) which enters the

afterburner.

b)

 For all other sources subject

 to Section 215.204, the

emissions are controlled by an afterburner system which

provides:

1)

81

 reduction in

 the overall emissions

 of volatile

organic material

 from the coating line,

and

2)

 Oxidation to carbon dioxide and water

of

90

of

the

nonmethane volatile organic material

 (measured as

total combustible carbon) which enters the after-

burner.

bc)

 ~ The system used

 to control such emissions is

demonstrated to have control efficiency equivalent to or

greater than that provided under the applicable pro-

vision of

 Section 215.204

 or subsections

(a)

or

 (b) ~

by ~he A~er~ey.

(Source:

 Amended at

 Ill.

 Reg.

________,

effective

___________)

Section

215.207

e~r~&3

Compliance

Aggregation of Emission Sources

a)

Ne

pe~ert

~h&~3 e&~e ei’ e33~ew~he e~er~ e?

 ~a~e

ef~g~rt~e

Me~4.e~

 f~r~ern~y

eea~4~r~g

 3~4~e

 ~e exeee~ei~y

m~~er~

ee~~e~

 See~er~ ~-294 w~e~&Owners

or

operators

coating

lines

subject

Section

215.204

may comply with this Section rather than with Section

215.204.

The

methods

procedures

used

determine

emissions of volatile organic material under this

Section shall

 be approved by the Agency

 in accordance

with

Ill.

Adm.

Code

201.

Emissions

volatile

organic material from sources subject to Section 215.204

are

allowable,

notwithstanding

 the limitations

in

Section 215.204,

if

 the combined actual emissions ~e~e

from a~33 selected coating lines

 at the coating plant,

but

not

including

coating

lines

other

emission

sources constructed or modified after July 1,

 1979,

is

less than or equal

 to the combined allowable emissions

r&ee

determined

the

following

equations:

(A1B1).

j=1

i=l

84—773

—30—

m

n

EACT

 (C~Bi(l

—

j=l

i=1

b)

 A1 shall

 be determined by the following formula:

1—

Si

bc)

 As used

 in subsectiona

(a)

and

 (b), symbols mean the

following:

EALL

 the allowable volatile organic material

emissions ~a~e from the coating plant

in

~eg~s

~

 ~ey kg/day

 (petrnd~pe~d~y

lb/day).

 the allowable emission

~a~e

limit for e~eha

coating pursuant to Section 215.204 expressed

in kg/l

 (lbs/gal)

 of coating solids7 exet~dir~g

w~e~7~e3-~ve~e~~e ~he ee~4r~geppe&~e~.

B1

 the volume of eeeh coating solids

 in 1/day

(gal/day)r

e~e~&4rtg

w~e~7in

 a coating

as

delivered

 to the coating ~p~4e&~e~

 line.

m

 the number

 of coating lines included

 in the

combined emission rate.

n

 the number of

~ype~ &~

different coatings

delivered

to

~he

 a coating

 4ea~e~

 line.

EACT

 the actual volatile organic material emissions

r~~e

from the coating plant

 in kg/day (lb/day)

 the weight

 of volatile organic material per

volume of

 e~r~g

solids

 in kg/l

 (lb/gal)

for

e~eha coating ~p~3~4ed~

D1

 the control efficiency by which emissions of

volatile organic material from ~he a coating

are reduced through the use

 of control

equipment.

 the a~plicab1evolatile organic material

emission limit pursuant to Section 215.204,

tor

 a coating

 in kg/i

 (lb/gal).

 the density of the volatile organic material

84—774

—31—

in

 a coating

 in kg/l

 (lb/gal).

ed)

 The owner or operator

 of the coating plant shall

maintain records

 of the density of the volatile organic

material in each coating,

 the quantity and

 3~er~

volatile organic material and solids content

 of each

coating applied and

 the line

 to which ~

 coating is

applied,

 in such

 a manner so as

 to ~s~a~e demonstrate

continuing compliance with the combined allowable

emissions ~

de)

 Except for emission sources subject to Sections 215.301

or 215.302,

 credits ~

 ~&e~

 from emission sources at

the coating plant that are subject

 to this Part, other

than coating lines, may

be

 given,- b~e~y to the extent

that they ~ep~e~er~ ~ee~er~

 emissions are reduced

from the allowable emission limits for such emission

sources contained

 in either this Part,

 or any existing

operating permit, whichever limit

 is less.

(Source:

 Amended at

 Ill. Reg.

_______,

 effective

IT

 IS SO ORDERED

I, Dorothy M. Gum,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Adopt~dRule, Final Order,

Opinion

 a,Tld Order was adopted on the ~

day

/

of

•~~v-’

 1987,

 by a vote of

 ‘~

~‘

Dorothy

 p4.’ Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

84—775