lOLl NO1S POLLUTION CON~IRGL BOARD

August 2l~ .L985

~N IRE MATTER OF:

‘DOATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

R82—14

ISS IONS FROM STA’fIONARY

)

Dock

~‘

A & H

RRURO~S: RACT II

U~SULUTION IN REOPONSE TO__JCAR

OBJL:CT ON

RtSOLUT ON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

This resolution

and order const:itutes

the Pollution Control

Board’s (“Board”) formal refusal to modify the RACT~-liI, Subpart

~ rules in response to the objection of the Joint Comm~ttec on

Administrative

Rules (“JCAR’~) dated July 25, 1985.

rj~hj3

resporn:;~

is made in accordance with Section 7.07 of the Illinois

Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).

A

notice ot refusal to

modify will be timely filed with the Secretary of State for

publication in the

Illinois

Register.

The JCAR objection of July 25, 1985, reads, in pertinent

part, as follows:

The Joint Committee objects to the

imposition of the requirements of Subpart

Q

of

the Pollution Control Board’s rules entitled

“Organic Material Emission Standards and

Limitations~ (35 Ill~ Adm. Code 215) on those

plants located outside of “nonattainment”

counties was accomplished without the Board

taking

into account

the economic

reasonableness of measuring and reducing

“Organic r4aterial” emissions, because the rule

violates Section 27(a) of the Environmental

Protection Act,. sicj

The rationale

for the objection is summarized as follows:

1.

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) only requires

the

application of RACT—Ill in nonattainment areas;

2. The costs and benefits of the application of RACT—Ili in

nonattainment areas

versus statewide application

was rio’~.

addressed

in the Economic Impact Statement (EcIS);

:3.

The promuiqation of ~

t

Q

violates

Section 27 (a) of

the Act which requires the ‘Board to consider the

“economic reasontb.enern

of regulations.

Because the

anticipated

air quality improvement do “not appear to be

significant”~ tne

~ecori3

shows

no “economic benefits”

6~361

---

received by the State by Sirposing RkCt—EII beyond

4. The cost estimates of the Board are seriously questioneti

by the industry which believes that they

)Cfl

undi~rstat’;:

5. The Board could not have analyzed “economic

reasonableness” of the rules aLnce

the

exact number at

plants regulated under the rubs is not precis~eiy known

and emiss tons data are not known from

md

I

.iitIuetl.

plant.

in the state.

To state that Section 172 of the CM only requires

application of RkCT in nonattainnent areas, thus restricting thy

Board’s focus on this aspect of Section 172, misses the nain

pucpose of Part D; to achieve attainment for ozone in all ar~act

of a state through an approved State lmplementation Plan (SlP).

Section 172 requires that “reasonamly available control

technology” (MCI) be implemented at existing stationary sources

in the nonattainment areac of those states needing an extension

from the 1982 deadline until 1987 to achieve the air quality

standards for ozone. Illinois is such a state, havin’j requesteca

the extension in its 1979 and 1982 SIP, and as of the .iate of

writing, having nine counties designated as nonattaininent area..

for ozone.

As a precondition for the construction or modification of

any stationary source in any nonattainment area,

Section

172

raquires that the

SIP

must provide for the achievement of

“reasonable further progress” towards attainment. “Reasonable

jurther progress” is defined in Section 171 as:

“annual incremental reductions in emissions ot

the applicable air pollutant (incinding

substantial reductions in the early years

following approval or promulgation of plan

provisions under this Part and Section

llO(a)(2)(I) and regular reductions

thereafter) which are sufficient in the

judgment of the Administrator, to provide for

attainment of the applicable national ambient

air quality standard by the date required in

Section 172(a).”

Exhibit 16 from R82-l4, RACT—III, outlines the Unste.I btat~c:

Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) criteria for an

approvable SIP. They are as follows:

“The plan must show

at:E.inmonc

of the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by 1987,

the plan must include an ~pprovab1e

inspection/maintenance (1/M) program for all

68-362

---

—3—

must

bi.C.

ceasonable further progress (RFP)

toward a~.zainrent, and the plan must include

scheduLes for the adoption and implementation

of any :.~complete S1P elements.”

The

reductions necessary for a showing of attainment by 1987

and of “reasonabia

.~ur~herprogress” are not limited to

nonattainment area sources because of the transport of ozone and

ozone precursors

from

one area to another. The USEPA, IEPA, the

Board and evet: 2.nthcz.rial representatives recognize the reality

nf ozone and p c

‘.

se1r transport ar1d. therefore, any plan for

achievement of

••

~nment

~øust

cake into account thIs concept.

The Board

..

~nducted three RACT

proceedings, over the

years, to comp~,

.

.i

the requirements of the CAA and to achieve

attainment for

t.

•

throughout the state. The rules promulgated

in these procei~z

.

are incor~orateci into Illinois’ 1979 and

1982 SIP and su

ant revisions. My program or strategy for

achieving ozone

~~øent must take into account the state’s

full regulatory

:cy in this area. The Board takes official

notice of the r~

.

s, opinions and orders of its previous

proceedings, RA~.;

.

(fl78—2,3) and RACT—Il (R80—5), in

promulgating ru~~

n tfle RACT—IlI proceeding. Clearly the new

RACT—IlI rules

~‘. -

~e analyzed by the USEPA in the context of

existing rules F: .he control of volatile organic material

(VOM), and in tL 3ntext of the state’s complete strategy for

achieving ozone ‘ainment by 1987. Therefore, it is appropriate

and necessary to ..:alyze the Board’s proposed RACT—Ill rules in

light of RACT—t ~n:~II.

On July L~, i”9, the Board adopted RACT—t on a statewide

basis. In the 1?..

~

Opinion, the Board explained at some length

the photochem~.ce.. eaction process

by which hazardous and other

oxidants interact

w;th volatile organic material to form ozone,

the importance c.~ iaeteorological factors in this process, and the

complex phenomen’~o urban scale, mesoscale, and synoptic scale

ozone transport. (I7B—3,4 opinion; pp. 4—10.) The Board at that

time concluded t~at

the transport phenomena, the necessity of

accommodating fui.uz~growth, the equitable application of the

rule, the interactIon of RACT—L rules with other regulations

(e.g., “offsets”

b.~Y~etnsources 100 miles apart), and the

general inaccucacy .:f modeling and prediction techniques all

supported a declr:ion that RACT—I be applied to stationary sources

throughout the a:r.te. ~Ibid.,pp. 8—10.)

One Dacernb?n. 3C.,

S82,

the Board adopted RACT—II utilizing a

phased approaon..

w~:;

uflimate statewide application. The RACT—

Ii Opinion add:esseëi ~n detail the issue of transport, the

implication of

~

n~r.~:tainne;;:

sources contributing to

ozone violat.’,ns

.t ;?1~cc1ks..n, :ne oatrabut~on of contiguous

attainment co’nty 30’irces ~.o niol&.tions in nonattainment

counties, and ri .:ee:~ ?or

~

t~rt~

application of RACT

controls. On

?~e.

atber 6, i.~s80, Mr. Steve Tampltn, Manager of

tEfl Air Quala

~.nrJng

~

provided testimony on the

---

-4—

transport of hydrocarbon enissia;~s horn rural and small urban

attainment areas into nonattainmen:. ~ceas; the existence of high

ozone levels in many rural, small town and

small urban areas

themselves; the de3irability of retaining a margin for growth of

new industries rather than allowing existing emission sources to

emit up to the maximum limit1 the avoidance of shifting

regulatory requirements; the equitth!e treatment of industries

across the state; and the ~:on~erv.att.c’n of ;e:roleum resources

(RACT—IT, R. 837—849).

On August

~,

1982, Mr. Tamplin :~covtded essentially the same

testimony in t:

QACT—Ul

per;~etdii~

regarding air quality

monitoring, mc,.: ny,

anô ozone

ani i~yarocarbon transport,

Illinois’ cent

:tion to Eleconsan ncnattainment, isolated rural

ozone violatie:

the coca to ~roviiIe

roon’ for growth in the S1P,

and contiguous :~:~ntyconnibutions

:c nonattainment (a. 40—63).

The precise: tynamics

cit

h?dr”euc~cntransport and ozone

formation are ~ fully ;in~terstoo:~even by experts in this

field. Thus, it. ‘6 difficult to say wath prarasion hew much and

how far ozone or ~,recurson:

ant

t’ansp3rted. Nonetneless, it is

obvious that county tines do not create “pollution barriers.”

This is especiafly true for a pollutant such as ozone which is

formed in a mixing zone far above the emission source and may

travel anywhere from 5 to 1,0(10 ntles. Despite the admitted

difficulty in quantifying the impact of transported hydrocarbons,

ozone transport is an observed and documented phenomena in

Illinois. (See R. 57; Opinion of the Board R78—3/4, pp. 6—8;

1982 SIP for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide, pp. 111—16; i981 Annual

Air Quality Report.) For example, rural 4acoupin County has few

industrial VOM sources, and yet f i~,evinLations of the 0.12 ppm

primary health standard were monitored in ~acoupin County in

1981. It is generally accepted that these violations are the

result of emiss~.onsgenerated in :the St. Louis Metropolitan Area

and transported 30 to 80 miles to the Niiwood monitoring

station. (See 1982 JIP kavision for Ozone and tarbon Monoxide,

pp. 111—16, 17.)

Macoupin County is an example

cif

transport from an urban

nonattainment area ~o a tunA area. However, Illinois also has

examples of transport l~ror.~rura.:

at.ta?.nwenc. areas to suburban

small town nonattainment areas. Notably, emissions from Will

County are implicated an the conattaininent problems experienced

in DuPage County. Will Cot:nty is designated

aE

attainment

although it contains five synthetzc c;cganic chemical and polymer

manufacturing (SOCPM) plants whicb seou.d be controlled through

application of Subpart C reguiati3ns. ~n the other xzar.d,

neighboring DuPage Couaty. ~:hich,at times, is darectly downwind

from Will County, is dcs’;nc..en r~r~...atnuen~atd has only three

potential SOCPM p~snts44rc::’s.

c~cc;~r: transport of so’~escope

is implicated it 1Loriatcaira1t~:;tpr~bb.:1t12t

ita

.Lltnois.

From the

location of thtt ‘nisst~n r

.

~

examptb~, there is also

an indication t:n~t iniuissct.~:s

~

ia counties surrounding

nonattainment v~sar:~ tL~

:.:::

~nJ~ to 3nntttz)ute to

d5

;IIY

---

—5—

nonattainment areas~ problems.

Thus, minimally, an effective

ozone strateg7 must obtain emission reductions

in the counties

immediately surrounding nonattainment counties, as well as

in

nonattairiment counties themselves.

The Board, during the cumulative course of all three RACT

proceedinqsr has been persuaded that a long—term ozone strategy

must address major RACT sources all over the state. Oriqina1.ly~

22 counties were designated as nonattainment for ozone. Illinois

experienced significant ozone violations in the late 1970’s and

Lr~ 1980 (Exhit ~3). Data from 1981 and 1982 showed

i.mLrov~,uer1ts

which resuc~

~

redesignation of a uumber of counties.

Presenl:ly,

. .~

counties are designated nonattainment for

OZOOC.

Howu :.:~: in 1983 Illinois experienced an incr~ane in

ozone violet. :::~ (Exhibit 67). Clearly, the ozone situation

~

lilinois is

;.

y variable and difficult to predict. The

relatively lu. nnber of violations in the early 1980’s has hoen

attributed to

.

number of possible factors including a siumE in

Illinois indu; .~al activity, meteorological conditions not

conaucive to

~.:

ne production arid implementation of RACT

contro~.e,

DE...

te these vagaries, the State’s ozone strategy,

as proposed to i’3EPA, has been based on statewide application of

RACT controls, This is consistent with

the observed transport

phenomenon, the necessity to provide room for industrial growth

in the

SIP,

and the need for a comprehensive approach to

achieving and maintaining ozone attainment by 1987,

Given the fact that major VOM emission sources are scattered

across the state and are in many instances located directly

upwind from areas that have in the past and are likely in

the

future to exoertence ozone violations, the Board finds

that a

prudent 1orig~

term ozone strategy must include statewide

application of RACT—IlI controls.

The

Board

would like to point out that many of the ozone

control

options,

other than RACT—Ill, are, for various reasons,

riot available ~o the State to show “reasonable further progress”

or to achieve statewide attainment by 1987. While there has,

after great del:Lberation, been a state commitment to inspection

and maintenance, actual implementation of the program may not

actualLy occur unt:i1 June of 1986. The IEPA is currently

preparing a regulatory proposal for the Board. Stage II vapor

recovery, which was docketed as a rulemaking before the Board,

was disallowed until there is a federal mandate, as a control

option

by

recent legislation and consequently dismissed.

Finally, the Board chose not to adopt the IEPA’s “Generic Rule”

in. its proposed form, thereby leaving non—CTG major stationary

sources presently uncontrolled. The Board merely wishes JCAR to

view the RACT~-IlI rules in the broader context that the st:ane erih

federal regulatory agencies must view them.

Finally it is apparent

that.

the USEPA recognizes

the

reality of ~n

~msoort

of hydrocarbon and ozone and will

take ~hst

into aceoun~:

.~

evaluating

sip

revIsions. This position is

65-36E.

---

—6—

illustrated by the USEPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking, dated

February 3, 1983, regarding “Compliance with the Statutory

Provisions of Part D of the Clean Air Act” (48 Fed. Reg. 4972).

These proposed rules outline a procedure for exempting a

nonattainment area

from sanctions, if there is: 1) a

demonstration of compliance with all requirements for the 1979

implementation plan for attainment; and 2) a demonstration that

the area would attain the primary ~AAQS level except for the

effect of transported ozone air pollution in excess of NAAQS (48

Fed, Reg. 4975), Another clear indication of federal recognition

of ozone transport is the February 3, 1983 t’lotice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

Illinois

1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Attainment Plan (48 Fed.

Reg.

5110),

which cites, as a major deficiency and basis for

dissapproval of the Illinois 1982 Ozone SIP revision, the failure

to demonstrate attainment in Southeast Wisconsin (Kenosha and

Racine counties)~ while Illinois

refutes

the responsibility tor

demonstrating

attainment

for these areas, it does not contest the

fact that

emission

from Northeastern Illinois sources contribute

significantly to the ozone levels in Southeast Wisconsin (Exhibit

61, Attachment 6)~

JCAR’s objection is based on the misconception that costs of

compliance with Subpart Q vary depending on whether a facility is

located in an attainment or nonattainment area. Industrial

representatives have argued that it is less cost—efficient or

reasonable to control emissions in clean areas than it is to

control in dirty

areas,

This approach attempts to compare the

cost of control measures to the environmental benefit or air

quality improvement. While in some circumstances it may be

desirable to attempt to quantify the costs and benefits that may

result from adoption of a particular rule, in this case such a

comparison can be made only in a simplistic and ultimately

unrealistic

fashion, To do so

one must assume that emission

reductions only benefit the county or immediate vicinity in which

the emissions are generated. Under this type of analysis, it is

self—evident

that it will be difficult to measure the health or

welfare improvement resulting from reduced ozone in attainment

areas, since by definition

these areas do not have acute or

measured ozone problems even with RACT—Ill,

The obvious flaw in

this analysis is

that

it attributes no “benefit” to controls

applied in attainment counties for reductions in ozone which

occur in neighboring or

even distant counties.

The fact is that experts in the field agree that the data

does not exist at this time which will enable us to quantify the

impact and thus the benefit of hydrocarbon reductions generated

in one county on another county, However, as stated earlier, it

is clear that the impact in some instances is quite

significant. A realistic cost—benefit analysis of

RACT—Ill based

on air quality improvement

would have

to account for the “real

world” complexity of ozone transport and formation.

Unfortunately, at this time this type of analysis is impossible

to make.

65-366

---

—7—

In the absence of the data necessary to perform a useful air

quality cost—benefit analysis for RACT—Ili, the next best

approach is to analyze the cost—benefit of PACT—Ill controls on a

~ol1ar-per—ton of reduction basis. This is the basic approach

taken in PACT—I and II and the EcIS in RACT—Ii:I. On a dollar—

per—ton basis, the cost of controls within a given category

is

generally the same regardless of where the source is located.

Using the dollar-per—ton basis, the cost of Subpart Q

is, on the

average, ~334/ton. This cost per ton compares favorably with

other PACT—Ill categories, as well as the generally less

expensive PACT—li controls.

The Board believes that it is inappropriate to segment: ~te

economic reasonableness analysis into attainment and

rionattainment contexts. As previously stated, costs of

compliance do not change from one area to another. The scope and

burden in

a general rulemaking is not individual ized,

Compi .i:mce

costs and emissions data from each plant impacted by a general

rule cannot always be taken in account. The Environmental

Protection Act (Act) and Board regulations provide mechanisms of

relief for facilities that are in unique positions of hardship

through variances and site—specific regulation. These options

are always available. JCAR may disagree with the Board’s

Findings of economic reasonableness but it is inaccurate to say

t~iat we have failed to analyze the economic reasonableness of

the

rules contained in Subpart Q. The Board, therefore, refuses

to

-nodify the rule in accordance with JCAR’s objection because it

goes to the substantive and technical merits of the rule i-i

~tjeSt

ion,

The public comment of Northern Petrochernical(P.C. 59) cleims

that Subpart

Q

compliance costs were understated by a factor oL

five times. JCAR relies on this statement as a basis for

objecting to the Subpart Q rules. However, testimony in the

record by a private inspection service (and not the IEPA)

indicates that they would charge $1.00 to $1.50 per component for

such an inspection (R. 1977). The estimate presented in Public

Comment 59 does not provide enough information to adequately

evaluate the factors that went into the estimate. AdditionalLy,

the estimate is directly refuted by sworn testimony in the record

by a private consultant engaged in this type of inspection

service, 3CAR~sreliance on this comment as a basis for its

objection appears to be a reweighing of the evidence by the

Committee. The Board refuses to modify the rule in accordance

with JCAR’s objection because it goes to the substantive and

technical merits of the rule in question.

As a final note regarding the quantification of costs and

benefits, such analyses are inherently biased against the

benefits of pollution control, As stated in the Opinion of the

DENR Economic and Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) which was

extensively relied on by JCAR in it:s objection, only one

“benefit” parameter was subject to “monetization.” This was Lh

projected improvement in Illinois’ crop yields resulting frori a

65-367

---

—8—

:~jected reduction in

ozone

concentrations.

however, this was

not the only tangible benefit from the regulation recognized in

the

ETAC Opinion. Beneficial effects in human health and

vegetation, as well as the additional safety

factor of insuring

against possible future increases in ozone concentrations and

possible adverse health impacts were considered tangible, hut

unquantifiable given the scope of the EcIS. Costs of compliance

are more readily quantified in economic terms. This bias, in

combination with the nonrecognition of transport of ozone (and

transport of benefits through ozone reduction) from one county to

another, skew the EcIS analysis. JCAR has chosen to view the

regulatory record in an extremely narrow perspective.

The

Board

believes that this constitutes an inappropriate reweighing of

substantive evidence and, therefore, will proceed to final notice

with

the

Subpart Q rules as proposed.

Board Members Walter Nega and 3. Theodore Meyer dissented.

IT IS SO ORDERED

I, Dorothy Ni, Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the abq,ve Resolution and Order was

adopted on the

~/

~day of

~

,

1985, by a

vote of ~

.~

.

•

~‘

~

f/h. ~

-

Dorothy NI, ,Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pàllution Control Board

65-368