ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 11, 1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL
)
R82-14
EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY
)
SOURCES: RACT III
INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):
This Interim Opinion and Order by the Board deals with
issues involving two separate source categories under
consideration in the RACT III rulemaking. The first category is
Subpart U: Coke Manufacture and By—Product Recovery and the
second category is Subpart P: Printing and Publishing, heatset
web offset printing.
1. Coke Oven By—Product Recovery
—
Section 215.500
The Board adopted final rules covering this category on
August 21, 1985 (9 Ill. Reg. 13960, effective August 28,
1985). Immediately following this action, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”) filed a motion to
reopen the record in this area (Agency Motion to Reopen
Record, August 26, 1985). The Board, by Order of September
20, 1985, reopened the record, proposed new language for
Section 215.500, and scheduled hearings which were held on
December 2 and 3, 1985. The matter was stayed at the request
of the Agency pending United States Environmental Protection
Agency (“USEPA”) review of the issue.
Section 215.500 outlines the interrelationship between
Subpart K: Use of Organic Material and Subpart U: Coke
Manufacture and By—Product Recovery. Subpart U applies to
four specific sources of emissions. Subpart K applies to a
number of other sources, not enumerated in Subpart U. As
originally proposed by the Agency, Section 215.500 provided
for Subpart K controls where controls were not specifically
provided in Subpart U. For the four emission sources
specified in Subpart U, compliance with Subpart K was not
required, thereby creating an “exception.”
On August 10, 1984, the Board proposed Section 215.500
for first notice in the form advocated by the Agency. In
response to first notice public comment by the Illinois Steel
Group (“ILSG”), the Board modified Section 215.500 to exclude
Subpart K provisions from applying to coke by—product
recovery plants. This change, made at second notice and
adopted as final on August 21, 1985, was based on the ILSG’s
assertion that the Board erroneously interpreted the Agency’s
72.338
—2—
intent regarding Subpart K and that no party desired that
subpart to apply to this industrial category. No comments
were received from the Agency until after final adoption of
this modification.
The Agency’s August 26, 1985, motion to reopen the
record and proposed amendment to Section 215.500 stated that
excluding Subpart K provisions from coke by—product recovery
plants de—regulates the majority of emission sources.
Since all three of the affected facilities are in non—
attainment areas for ozone, the result is to allow an
increase in emissions from these now unregulated sources.
Consequently, the Board again proposed for first notice the
language originally proposed by the Agency. Hearings were
held December 2 and 3, 1985.
On January 29, 1986, the Agency moved to stay further
consideration of proposed Section 215.500 pending USEPA
review of what would be considered RACT in this category. On
June 27, 1986, the Agency moved the Board to withdraw
proposed Section 215.500 and to maintain the current Section
215.500 adopted at 9 Ill. Reg. 13960, effective August 28,
1985. The basis for this action was a USEPA, Region V,
recommendation to headquarters regarding a rule for coke by-
product recovery plants adopted by the state of Alabama in
December, 1985. Region V of USEPA believes that the Alabama
rule will likely be consistent with any coke by—product
NESHAPS for benzene promulgated in the future. Therefore,
Region V recommended to USEPA Headquarters that the Alabama
rule or something similar be considered RACT for coke by-
product recovery plants. The Alabama rule has been submitted
to USEPA as part of that state’s ozone State Implementation
Plan (“SIP”). There is a certain degree of confidence that
the Alabama rule will be approved as RACT (Agency Status
Report, paragraphs 2—3, June 27, 1986).
The Agency believes that if USEPA Headquarters approves
the “Alabama rule” as PACT and accepts USEPA’s recommen-
dation, and if the volatile organic material (“VOM”) emission
reduction under the present Illinois regulation can be shown
to be equivalent to the reductions under the Alabama rule,
then the Board’s existing regulations could be approved by
USEPA as RACT for this source category. Preliminary emission
reduction comparisons made by the Agency showed that the
emission reductions under the existing Illinois rule may be
less than that achieved under the Alabama rule. Additional
requirements to control the coke oven gas (“COG”) bleeder may
ultimately be necessary in these rules. However, all
Illinois coke by—product recovery plants have flares to
control the excess COG. If this additional requirement
becomes necessary, the impact would be minimal (Id.,
paragraphs 4—5).
72.339
—3—
The ILSG filed comments August 29, 1986, supporting the
withdrawal of proposed Section 215.500. The ILSG stated that
as the Alabama rule was not a part of the existing regulatory
record that it has not been evaluated by ILSG. Consequently,
the ILSG did not respond to the Agency’s statements regarding
potential minimal impacts if additional control on the COG
bleeder are required. If and when the Alabama rule becomes
part of the regulatory record, it will be reviewed by ILSG to
assess the potential impact.
The Board will grant the Agency’s motion to withdraw
proposed Section 215.500 which is currently in first
notice. Due to the uncertainly regarding USEPA’s final
determination on RACT requirements for coke by—product
recovery plants, the prudent course of action is to withdraw
the recent proposal pending more explicit guidance from
USEPA. This action will leave the existing Subpart U rules
intact. If future amendments or modifications are required
for the existing rules, these can be addressed in subsequent
action.
2. Heatset Web Offset
—
Agency’s Proposed Amendment to the
Definition of Volatile Organic Material.
Rules regulating heatset web offset (“HWO”) printing
were a part of the Agency’s original regulatory proposal that
initiated this rulemaking in 1982. Numerous merit hearings
were conducted. Due to the complex issues involved in
regulating this subcategory, a separate economic impact study
(“EcIS”) was prepared by the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources (“DENR”). EcIS hearings were held. The Board
proposed rules for first notice on August 10, 1984. During
the first notice comment period, the Printing Industry of
Illinois (“P11”) requested an additional hearing. On May 30,
1985, the Board, as a vehicle for focusing unresolved issues,
proposed different language based on the draft Control
Techniques Guidelines (“CTG”) for this category, and directed
the matter to further hearings. At the written request of
the P11, hearings were stayed pending certain regulatory
developments purportedly relevant to this proceeding. First
notice hearings were held on April 1 and 2, 1986, in
Chicago. The final comment period ends September 30, 1986.
At the April 1, 1986, hearing, the Agency, for the first
time, proposed a regulatory amendment to the current
definition of ‘volatile organic material’ (“VOW’) found at
Section 215.104. The Agency proposed to add the following
subsection to the existing definition of VOM (which is
expressed in terms of vapor pressure at 294.3 K (70 F)):
72.340
—4—
“c) Any organic materials which participate
in atmospheric photochemical reactions or
are measured by the applicable reference
methods specified under any subpart of 40
CFR 60, unless specifically exempted from
this definition.”
The Agency testified that this change would only impact
the HWO printers and that no other known industrial process
or category would come under the proposed regulation (R.
3906—3908). This contention was questioned variouslyat
hearing by the attending Board staff and the P11 (R. 3908,
3911, 3914—3918).
The Board does not question the sincerity of the
Agency’s contention regarding this proposed amendment.
However, it does believe that there may be some unintended
impact beyond the scope of the Agency’s review of industrial
sources. The definition of VOM is a key term used throughout
the Board’s ozone control regulations. While not attempting
to prejudge the issue, the Board believes that the proposed
definitional change could have significant impact beyond the
HWO printing category. Additionally, the proposal of this
amendment creates certain procedural problems as it relates
to the R82—14 HWO category. The proposed rules regulating
UWO are in an advanced procedural stage. Numerous merit,
EcIS and first notice hearings have been held and the comment
record will close on September 30, 1986. But for the
proposed redefinition of VOM, the factual record in this area
is as fully developed as it can reasonably be. This matter
is nearly ready for decision.
Other procedural issues that arise as a result of the
Agency’s proposed redefinition of VOM include whether
sufficient notice and hearing have been provided in at least
two counties; whether there was an adequate description in
the notice provided for the April 1 and 2, 1986, hearings (at
the time notice was provided, the Board had no knowledge of
the Agency’s planned redefinition of VOM which was presented
at hearing on April 1, 1986); and whether a separate EcIS
determination needs to be made regarding the Agency proposal.
In order to resolve these issues, the Board believes
that the Agency’s proposed redefinition of VOM must be
separated from the R82—14 proceeding and docketed as a new
proceeding. This will allow a thorough analysis with all the
safeguards provided by the Environmental Protection Act and
Administrative Procedures Act while not unduly delaying the
proposed rules in the HWO category. Therefore, by the
accompanying order, the Agency’s proposed redefinition of VOM
is docketed as a new regulatory proceeding and hearings are
authorized.
72-341
—5—
ORDER
1. The proposed amendment to Section 215.500 which was directed
to first notice on September 20, 1985, and published at 9
Ill. Reg. 17723, November 15, 1985, is hereby withdrawn. The
Clerk of the Board is directed to file a Notice of Withdrawal
of Proposed Amendment with the Secretary of State.
2. The proposed amendment to the definition of ‘volatile organic
material’ found at Section 215.104 which was made by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on April 1, 1986, is
hereby severed from the R82—14, RACT III, regulatory
proceeding and is separately docketed as a new proceeding.
Hearings are authorized in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab e Interim Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
//~-
day of
.~
,
1986, by a vote
of
___________.
Dorothy M. unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
72-342