ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

5,

1982

IN THE MATTER OF:

RB0—5

RACT

II RULES,

CHAPTER

2:

AIR POLLUTION

Final Rule.

Second Notice.

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by

I.

Goodman):

I~

General Introduction

A.

Procedure

This proceeding

is undertaken pursuant

Lu

the Board’s

authority in Section

10

of the Environmental Protection Act (Act)

to adopt regulations to promote

the purposes

of the Title

It of

the Act.

Those purposes include

the

restoration, maintenance and

enhancement of the purity of the air and the assurance that

the

degree of control necessary

to prevent pollution

is given to all

air contaminents

(Section 8),

It

is also the purpose

of Title

II

to avoid duplicative,

overlapping or conflicting

state and federal

regulatory systems

(Section

9.1).

These regulations are designe:1

both to improve and protect air quality

in Illinois and to meet

the requirements of the Federal

Clean Air Act

(CAA).

On April

3,

1980 the Board authorized

for filing a proposal

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) to adopt

certain regulations limiting emissions of volatile organic

materials

(VOM)

from certain categories of sources in the state.

Part of

the proposal concerns refinements of similar rules

adopted by the Board on July

12,

1979

in its proceedings R78—3

and —4, known as “RACT—I”, and part concerns rules relating to

other categories

of sources

(known

as

“RACT—Il”).

Six technical hearings were held

in this proceeding

in June

and November of

1980,

The Economic Impact Study

(EcIS) entitled,

“Effect of Ract

II Environmental Controls

in Illinois,”

(Doc.

No.

81-28) was prepared by

RCF,

Inc. under contract with the Illinois

Institute of Natural Resources and was received by the Board in

August of

1981.

Three eocnomic hearings were held

in November

of

1981.

The transcribed record of

the hearings

(totalling 2093 pages),

61 Exhibits

(including the EcIS),

and thirty—five public comments

(received prior

to January

4,

1982) were considered by

the

Board

prior to the issuance of

a proposed Board

rule on this subject on

The Board acknowledges

the assistance of Patricia

F. Sharkey

as hearing officer and in the drafting of

the Opinion and Order

in this proceeding.

49-67

---

May 27, 1982.

The proposed rule, which differed from the Agency

proposal

in many respects, was published in the Illinois

Register

on July

9,

1982 in accordance with Section 5.01(a)

of the Illinois

Administrative Procedure

Act.

Twenty—five comments were received on the Board~s

proposed

rule.

In response to these comments,

the proposed rule was modi-

fied in

a number of respects.

These modifications are addressed

later in this

Opinion.

B.

The “RACT”

Concept

“RACT”

is an

anacronym for the phrase “reasonably available

control technology”

as used in Part

D of the CAA,

42 U.S.C.

§7401,

et ~q.

Section

172 of the CAA requires

that State Implementation

Plans, as a

precondition for the construction

or modification of

any major stationary

source in any

non—attainment area, must pro-

vide for the achievement

of “reasonable

further progress” toward

air quality

goals,

including such

emission reductions from existing

sources as may

be achieved through the

adoption of “reasonably

available control

technology.”

RACT is not

defined

in the Clean

Air Act, however,

TJSEPA rules

(40 CFR 51.1(o)),

general policy

statements,

and

industry specific “Control

Technology Guidelines”

(CTG) describe

Federal RACT requirements.

In

general, RACT is

defined

as control

technology which is both

technically available

and economically

reasonable

for a particular

industry.

In specific,

USEPA has issued CTG~sdescribing

technology it

considers to be

“reasonably available”

for

specific categories of

industrial

activity.

USEPA policy has been to

approve state RACT

regulations

as meeting CAA requirements

if they result in no

more

than a

5 percent

deviation

from the emission

reductions which

would be achieved by applying the CTG~sverbatim,

Any greater

deviation from the CTG~s

must be

supported by the particular

needs of the

state.

USEPA issued

CTG~scovering nine

industrial categories

in

1978.

The Agency’s

1980 proposal contained

proposed controls

for the following

seven categories:

1.

Graphic

Arts

—

Rotogravure and Flexography

2.

Petroleum

Refinery Leaks

3.

Surface Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts

&

Products

4.

Petroleum

Liquid Storage in External

Floating Roof Tanks

5.

Manufactured

Synthesized Pharmaceutical

Products

6.

Manufactured

Pneumatic Rubber Tires

7.

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems

Two other 1978 CTG categories, Gasoline

Tank Trucks and

Factory Surface Coating of Flatwood Paneling,

were not included

in the proposal and

have not been considered in

this rulemaking.

Gasoline Tank Trucks

are covered by existing Board rules.

Factory

Surface Coating

of Flatwood Paneling

is

not focused on because no

factories of this nature exist

in Illinois at this time.

49-68

---

3

As drafted, these rules identify technology which is

both

practically available and economically reasonable for the Illinois

industrial sources which are addressed by the 1978 Federal CTG’s.

‘to

the

extent

that

the technical requirements of these rules

differ

from

those

in

the Federal CTG’s, the Board believes these

differences

reflect

the

technical

and

economic

limitations

of

the Illinois plants addressed.

II.

Statewide Applicability of RACT II Controls

A.

Introduction to the Issues

In 1979 the Board adopted MC? I on a statewide basis.

In

the

MC? I Opinion the

Board

explained

at

some

length

the

photo—

chemical

reaction

process

by

which

hazardous

and

other

oxidants

interact to form ozone,

the

importance

of

meteorological

factors

in this process, and the complex phenomena of urban scale,

mesoscale,

and

synoptic scale ozone transport.

(R78—2,3 Opinion;

pp. 4-10.)

The Board at that time concluded that the transport

phenomena, the

necessity of accommodating future growth, the

equitable application of the rule, the interaction of MC? I rules

with other regulations (e.g. ‘offsets’ between sources 100 miles

appart), and the general inaccuracy of modeling and prediction

techniques all supported a decision that RACT I be applied to

stationary sources throughout the state.

(Ibid., pp.

8—10.)

The Agency’s proposal for

RACT

II categories did not propose

to

change

the

policy

adopted

in

RACT

I.

Rather

the

Agency

sup-

ported

continued

statewide

applicability

with

direct

testimony

presented

by

Mr. Steve Tamplin, Manager of the IEPA

Air

Quality

Planning

Section.

(R.

837-849.)

In

support

of

statewide

applic-

ability

of

RACT II,

Mr.

Tamplin

cited

the

transport

of

hydro-

carbon

emissions

from

rural

and

small

urban

attainment

areas

into

non-attainment

areas;

the

existence

of

high

ozone

levels

in

many

rural,

small

town

and

small

urban

areas

themselves;

the

desirability

of

retaining

a

margin

for

growth

of

new

industries

rather than allowing existing emission sources to emit up to the

maximum

limit;

the

avoidance

of

shifting

regulatory

requirements;

the

equitable

treatment

of

industries

across

the

state;

and

the

conservation of petroleum resources.

Mr. Tamplin concluded

that

‘it is unlikely that the ozone NAAQS will be achieved in

urban

areas in Illinois... unless hydrocarbon emission levels in rural

areas

are

reduced.’

On the other hand, several representatives of the affected

industries have urged that MC? II be adopted only for

Non—attainment Areas.

Under the most recently proposed redesig—

nations, this would

mean

that industries in only eight counties

in Illinois would fall within the purview of

RACT

II.

In support

of this position it is argued that the Federal Clean

Air Act

does not require

that

RACT

controls be applied statewide; that

“the effect of long—range transport from rural to urban areas is

49-69

---

4

insignificant;” that statewide application of the rule will not

significantly reduce background ozone levels in non—attainment

areas;

that RACT

II

is

not necessary to insure a

margin for growth

in attainment

areas; that industry-wide inequities

should not be

a concern

to the state

if the industrial community

supports the

position;

and,

finally, that recent air quality monitoring

indicates

that statewide applicability is not

necessary to achieve

attainment in existing Non~attainmentAreas.

B.

Discussion of the Rule

1.

Air

Quality

The precise dynamics of hydrocarbon transport and ozone

formation are not fully understood even by experts in this field.

Thus

it is difficult

to say with precision how much and how far

ozone is transported.

Nonetheless,

it is obvious that county

lines do not create “pollution barriers.”

This is especially

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 1000 miles,

Despite

the admitted difficulty

in quantifying

the impact of

transported hydrocarbons, ozone

transport

is an

observed and documented phenomena

in Illinois.

(See

R.

839—841;

Opinion of the Board R78—3/4,

pp.

6~-8; 1982

SIP for Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide, pp.

111-16;

1981 Annual Air Quality Report.)

For example, rural Macoupin County

has

few industrial VOM

sources,

and yet

five

violations of

the

0,12 ppm primary health

standard were monitored

in Macoupin

County

in

1981,

It

is gene-

rally accepted

that these violations

are

the

result of emissions

generated

in

the

St.

Louis Metropolitan

Area

and

transported 30

to 80 miles

to

the Nilwood monitoring

station.

(See 1982 SIP

Revision for Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide,

pp.

111—16,

17.)

Macoupin County is an example

of

transport from an urban

Non—attainment, area to a

rural

area,

However, Illinois also has

examples

of transport

from rural

Attainment areas to suburban—

small town Non—attainment areas,

Notably, emissions

from Will

County are implicated in the Non-attainment problems

experienced

in DuPage County.

Will County is proposed to be designated as

Attainment although large refineries and other sources in Will

County generate approximately

10,000

TPY

of

VOM which could be

eliminated by RACT II controls.

On

the other hand, neighboring

DuPage

County, which is directly downwind from Will County,

is

proposed to be designated as Non—attainment although RACT II

sources there generate less than 200 TPY.

Clearly, transport of

some scope is implicated in Non—attainment area problems in Illi-

nois.

From the location of the emission sources

in these examples,

there is also an indication that emissions generated in counties

surrounding Non—attainment areas are the most likely to contribute

to Non—attainment areas~problems.

Thus, minimally,

an effective

ozone strategy must obtain emission reductions in the counties

immediately surrounding Non—attainment counties as well as in

Non—attainment counties themselves.

49~70

---

5

The Board is also persuaded that a long-term ozone strategy

must address major RACT

II

emission sources all over the state.

While

22

counties are currently designated as Non—attainment,

Illinois EPA and U.S.

EPA both propose, on the basis of recent

data, that only eight counties be so designated in the immediate

future,

(See 47 FR 31588, July

21,

1982.)

The 1981 Annual Air

Quality Report,

published by IEPA, and the new 1982 SIP data do

document a recent decrease

in ozone

levels.

However, both docu-

ments also point out that the summer meteorology in

1979,

1980,

and 1981 are not as conducive to ozone formation and transport

as the previous years

(1977 and 1978) nor as the norm over the

last

t:wenty years.

(Also see Econ,

R.

272,)

Furthermore,

the

Agency’s proposed ozone strategy,

submitted in the most recent

SIP revision, assumed that RACT II controls would be applied

statewide.

This is consistent with the Agency’s testimony that

“the observed long—range transport phenomena must be accounted

for in any comprehensive hydrocarbon control program designed

to successfully deal with ambient ozone concentration in excess

of the national standard,”

(R.

840—841,)

An additional factor which is not accounted for in the

recent data is the fact that many Illinois industries have been

operating below capacity during this period.

For example,

two

major refineries have closed during this period.

If reopened

these refineries will emit over 30,000 TPY of hydrocarbons.

Both refineries have requested that IEPA consider those emissions

“banked” and available for future

use.

Also,

in other regulatory

proceedings pending before the Board

(R81—16,

R81—20), a number

of industrial representatives

have

indicated that current pro-

duction levels are down and have requested that a higher,

“more

representative” emission

level

be

considered a norm for purposes

of regulatory projections.

In

consideration of these facts,

prudence dictates that we not be overly confident in the recent

“trend.”

Even under the favorable recent conditions relatively

high readings have been recorded

in

small town and small urban

Attainment areas over the last three years

(e.g. Springfield:

.108,

.106,

.119,

.113,

.104;

Peoria Heights:

.121,

.104,

.111,

.107; LaSalle:

.127,

.128; McHenry:

.164).

In fact on 72 of

153 days in the 1980 ozone season and 53 of 153 days in the 1981

ozone season,

at least one Illinois city or area was placed on

an

ozone advisory.

With a resurgence

in the economy and/or a

return to more “normal” meterology, areas such as Peoria may very

likely be recording ozone levels violating the health standards

in the future.

Given the fact that major VOM emission sources are scattered

across the state and are in many instances located directly up-

wind from areas that have in the past and are likely in the future

to experience ozone violations,

the Board finds that a prudent

long—term ozone strategy must include statewide application of

RACT II controls.

49-71

---

6

The Board also notes that recent proposals to amend the

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)

suggest that it

would be imprudent to rely on that program to insure maintenance

of a margin for growth.

Although one commentor argues that

“current Clean Air Act Amendments” do not propose to relax hydro-

carbon emissions from automobiles

(P.C.

#47),

there has been no

final Congressional action on proposed amendments to the Clean Air

Act as of this date,

Notably, the 1982 SIP states that Non—methane

hydrocarbon emissions could rise by as much as

9

over the current

program’s 1987 projections

if relaxations in

the FMVCP which have

been proposed are enacted.

(See pp.

X—4,)

Another consideration is that the shifting of regulatory

requirements which would result

if RACT were applied only in NAA

is counter—productive to pollution control decision—making both

in business and government,

The long—range planning perspective

necessary to make investments and plan growth is unlikely to

benefit from the uncertainty added by a “wait and see” approach.

Absent a statewide approach,

RACT II emission sources could

increase emissions in a non—attainment area by using a credit

from controlling a source in

an

attainment area.

Notably,

in the

R81—20 proceeding,

industry representatives supported a “bubble”

rule which would allow emission sources to “bubble” VOM emissions

over great distances

(possibly the whole

state) without regard to

the attainment status of

the areas involved.

This argument was

based on the existence of a transport phenomena.

(R81—20;

R.

578—

579.)

There is an inherent contradiction in allowing statewide

VOM “bubbles,” while not applying RACT statewide.

There is also

a danger that air quality in non—attainment areas will be harmed.

2.

Economics

Several industrial representatives

argue that it

is less

cost—efficient to control

in clean areas than it is to control

in dirty areas.

They attempt to compare the cost of control

measures

to the environmental benefit or air quality improvement.

While the Board generally agrees with this approach,

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.

This is the approach taken in the

EcIS.

(See pp.

21—36;

155—157.)

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 we begin with the assumption that these areas do not

have acute or measured ozone problems even without RACT II.

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

authors of the EcIS may have misled the industrial representa-

tives with regard to this point.

The EcIS flatly states that

49-72

---

7

“possible long—range transport effects due

to RACT II ozone reduc-

tions did not appear great enough

.

.

.

to warrant adjustment of

the background level

for long—range transport effects of RACT It.”

(EcIS Pp.

33—34.)

No technical documentation is given

for this

statement,

and nothing else

in the record of this proceeding would

support it.

In light of the sworn testimony of technical experts

in this field and the observed effect of the transport phenomena

on counties such as DuPage,

Macoupin, and Monroe, and the “ozone

sink” phenomena in Will County, this assumption by the economists

who drafted the EcIS is disturbing.

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 II 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.

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

quality cost—benefit analysis for RACT II, the next best approach

is to analyze the cost-benefit of RACT II controls on a dollar—

per—ton of reduction basis.

This is the basic approach taken in

the EcIS.

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.

(See EcIS, Table

I,

p.

xii;

Table 3.2,

p.

66;

p.

95.)

From the perspective of the quantity of hydrocarbon emissions

generated throughout the state,

attainment areas are by no means

insignificant emitters.

Attainment areas generate approximately

one-third of the RACT II VOM emissions in the state.

In fact,

in

some categories,

the largest VOM emitters in

the state are located

in attainment areas.

(See,

for example, the Petroleum Refinery

categories and the Rotogravure and Flexography category.)

Cal-

culations made from the emission source data in the record indi-

cate that approximately half of the emission reductions which can

be achieved by RACT II controls will come from attainment areas.

Thus,

approximately one—half of the emission reduction benefit

for

the whole state is derived from attainment areas,

and, within

given categories, actually a greater benefit can

be

obtained

from

emission sources located in attainment areas than from those

located in non—attainment areas.

There is no basis in the record

for concluding that Illinois

industries will

be at a competitive disadvantage vis—a—vis indus-

tries located in states which have adopted RACT only in NAA.

In

fact,

the major industrial states of California,

New Jersey,

Massachusetts,

South Carolina, Michigan,

Ohio,

and Pennsylvania

have all adopted RACT controls on

a statewide basis.

(R.

847.)

On the contrary,

a competitive disadvantage will accrue to Illi-

nois industries located in NAA vis—a—vis Illinois industries

49-73

---

8

located outside NAA if RACT is not applied statewide.

The com-

petitive disadvantage would be increased for businesses in NAA’s

jn that various exemptions and extensions

for industries

in

RACT II categories would have to be eliminated

to

accommodate

for increased pollutant background levels.

These Illinois

industries would not only be at a competitive disadvantage

vis—a—vis their

counterparts elsewhere, but also with their

direct competitors in neighboring counties.

One

commentor

(P.C.

#47) states that “the question of equity

should not be an issue

in

this proceeding,” since several large

industrial and manufacturing associations support application of

the rules only in NAA’s,

The Board disagrees with this statement.

The equitable application of regulatory burdens across similarly

situated businesses is an appropriate concern in the development

of state policy.

The Board notes that the recently enacted

Illinois Regulatory Flexibility Act specifically charges state

agencies with a responsibility for insuring that regulatory

burdens do not fall disproportionately on the traditionally

under—represented

small business community.

Emission reductions

which can be obtained by application of RACT to large emission

sources

in both attainment and non—attainment areas provide the

flexibility to allow greater exemption levels and deviations from

the CTG requirements for smaller sources in both NAA and AA.

Absent these reductions

from the large emitters in AA’s,

small

businesses in NAA’s,

their employees, and the communities in

which they are located will

bear

a

greater burden although they

produce a smaller increment

of

pollution.

Putting the

question of equity aside,

the Board notes that the

final rule has been

modified in numerous

respects to meet the con-

cerns expressed by industry representatives.

As the rule is cur-

rently drafted, the economic consequences are not unreasonable for

industries located

in any part of the state.

In most instances,

the equipment required will pay for itself within 3—5 years due

to the recovery of expensive solvents.

In at least two of the

six categories, the savings generated by conserving petroleum

products significantly outweigh the cost of the program or equip-

ment requirements.

(See EcIS p.

xii.)

If there are unique cases

of economic hardship,

the Board can and will consider these within

the context of a variance proceeding.

3.

“Phased Approach” to Statewi~j~4c~ilit

Having stated that long—term ozone strategy must address

emissions

generated across the state, the Board nonetheless

finds that the current downturn in production and emissions

enables the state to devise a more lenient short—term ozone

strategy, without jeopardizing air quality.

The regulations

as drafted embody a “phased approach” which will achieve both

the short—term and long—term goals.

(See

Rule 205(j).)

Under

this “phased approach~RACT

II industries located in those

49-74

---

9

counties which are currently proposed to be designated as Non—

Attainment by

U.S.

EPA and the counties which are contiguous

to those Non—Attainment counties will generally be required to

comply with RACT II requirements before December 31, 1983.

Industries

in all other counties will have the option of com-

plying with the requirements at a later date,

but in no case

later than December

31,

1987.

The time-frames

for submittal

of compliance plans have also been

adjusted for these counties.

If another county is designated as Non-Attainment after the date

of this rule,

industries in that county and any counties contig-

uOUS to that county will have one year from the date of redesig—

nation to come into compliance.

However,

future redesignations

of Non—Attainment areas as Attainment or unclassified will not

trigger a RACT II relaxation since the air quality improvement

is likely to be linked to those very controls.

The

two “phases” of this approach correspond in both time

and place

to the short-term and long—term ozone picture.

In the

short—term,

emission sources in and directly around Non—Attainment

areas will be controlled as soon as

is feasible.

By December 31,

1983,

49,250 TPY or 65

of the predicted statewide RACT II reduc-

tions will be achieved by the deadlines in the Board’s proposed

rule.

(See Rule 205(j)(l).)

In light of the fact that emissions

are down all over the state, this level of reduction should insure

that ozone problems in the proposed Non—Attainment areas will be

alleviated at least for the short—term,

At the same time,

econo-

mically depressed industries in other parts of the state will be

able to defer change—over costs until

a somewhat later date,

The longer—term,

statewide perspective envisions emissions

and production picking up over

•the next few years, coupled with

new industrial growth and

a return to normal weather patterns,

resulting in a greater probability of ozone problems in both the

proposed Non—Attainment areas and other “borderline” problem

counties in other parts of the state

(e.g.,

the Peoria,

Rockford,

and Decatur-Springfield Metropolitan Areas).

To insure against

higher future ozone

levels, the regulations will be applicable

to industries across the state by a date certain.

The provision

of the 1987 deadline, rather than deferring rulemaking with regard

to these counties,

is designed to demonstrate the Board’s firm

commitment to the statewide approach and

to enable the affected

industries to begin planning their RACT II control

strategies

immediately.

It

is anticipated that many companies will find it

preferable to change over to low solvent technologies before the

1987 date.

The certain knowledge that neighboring competitors

will also be required to switch to low solvent technologies in

the near future should make these change—overs more palatable

and should spur business planning rather than delay it.

The

Board notes that companies or entire industries which take a

“wait and see” approach rather than planning for compliance

do so at their own risk,

49-75

---

10

III.

Proposal to Exempt Particular Solvents

On

May

30,

1980

De

Soto,

Inc.,

Midland Division, the Dexter

Corp.,

and

International

Harvester

Co.

petitioned

the

Board

to

amend

the

definition

of Volatile Organic Matter

(VOM) by adding

1,1,1

—

Trichloroethane and Methylene Chloride

to the list of

solvents which are exempt from the definition of VOM.

(Ex.

31;

P.C.

3.)

The Board consolidated this proposal with the R80-5

proceeding because these solvents can be a compliance alternative

for some surface coating operations.

There is considerable debate in the record on the exemption

of these solvents.

Participants

arid commentors generally agree

that these solvents do not appreciably contribute to ozone forma-

tion and are only negligibly photochemically reactive.

Thus,

it

is agreed that it is inappropriate to regulate them as ozone pre-

cursors.

However, there was disagreement as to other health

effects that may be caused by these solvents and as to their con-

tribution to depletion of the stratospheric ozone

layer

(6 miles

above the earth).

(R.

701—751;

409—425;

1401—1446.)

These

identical issues were considered in the RACT

I proceeding in which

the Board decided that an exemption was unwarranted due to the fact

that these solvents had not been well tested

for their toxicological

properties.

(R.

79—3,4,

Opinion of the Board,

pp. 11—13.)

Although the record in this proceeding reflects some new

research on this issue

(as well as much of the research considered

in RACT I), the evidence on toxicological effects and stratospheric

ozone depletion accumulated

in this proceeding

is far from exhaus-

tive or conclusive,

For

example, the record contains no testimony

from qualified toxicologists or M.D.’s.

The weakness of the record

on this issue is partially the result of the fact that very little

research exists on these solvents and partially the result of the

fact that the other RACT II issues are of a very different nature.

Due to the insufficiency of the record on the alleged toxicological

characteristics of these solvents and of their effect on stratos-

pheric ozone, the Board believes it would be imprudent to rule on

these issues in this proceeding.

However, without deciding these

issues,

the Board does find that it is inappropriate to regulate

these substances as “volatile organic material” under Rule 205

because the function of Rule 205

is

to regulate ozone precursors

and it has been demonstrated that these solvents are not ozone

precursors.

Thus,

these rules exempt these solvents

from the

definition of “Volatile Organic Material” in Rule 201.

It should be noted, however,

that this exemption does not

preclude future regulation of these substances as hazardous air

pollutants.

In its comments IEPA asks (perhaps rhetorically)

why the Board does not regulate these and other possibly more

dangerous substances

as hazardous air pollutants.

(P.C.

#50,

p.

6.)

The response to that question

is simply that neither the

IEPA nor anyone else has presented such a proposal.

Given such

a proposal and adequate technical documentation, Illinois might

49-76

---

11

very well decide to regulate these and other solvents under Part X

of

the

Board’s

Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Regulations

(which is

entitled Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

Thus,

businesses which choose to utilize these solvents as a RACT II

compliance alternative do so at the risk that they may be subject

to other regulations in the future.

IV.

Rotogravure and Flexography

-

Rule 205(s)

A.

Introduction to the Issues

In the “Graphic Arts

-

Rotogravure and Flexography” category,

emission reductions can be achieved by 1) adding on a carbon adsorp-

tion control system,

2) adding on an incineration control system,

or

3)

switching to low solvent inks.

The proposed rule provides

that use of any of these three alternatives will constitute RACT

provided that certain reduction efficiencies are achieved.

The use of low solvent inks which are either water borne or

high solids is the preferred technology because it is the least

material and energy intensive,

as well as the least expensive,

alternative.

However, water borne inks which are currently avail-

able do not meet all printing requirements.

The USEPA CTG for

this category indicates that water borne

inks are used extensively

for printing on heavy paper materials,

but are not used on thin

paper stock because the higher water content weakens the paper.

(Ex.

9,

p.

3—9.)

To encourage development of more widely usable

low solvent inks,

USEPA has indicated that they will accept an

extension of the compliance date beyond December 31,

1982 for

sources which are making good faith efforts

to develop low solvent

ink systems.

(Rhoad’s Memo, Group

Ex.

20,)

The Flexible Packaging

Association of Illinois testified that with this compliance date

extension, their members should be able to bring

low solvent inks

on line.

(R.

279.)

The USEPA CTG and the IEPA proposal recommended that printing

presses using water borne inks consisting of 75

or more of water

and 25

or less of organic solvent by volume should be considered

RACT.

At these volumes, emission reductions equivalent to those

expected from the add-on treatment system should be achieved.

USEPA and IEPA also recommend that inks which contain 60

or more

non—volatile material be considered RACT in order to encourage

development of high solids

inks,

The CTG states that carbon adsorption and incineration sys-

tems have a reduction efficiency of

90

of the VOC delivered to

them.

However, the efficiency of the capture systems, such as

hooding, which are required to deliver the emissions

to the ad—

sorber or incinerator, varies with the type of printing operation.

Reported combined capture and reduction efficiencies

for publica-

tion rotogravure plants have been 75

or more.

(CTG,

Ex.

9,

p.

1—2.)

Large packaging rotogravure presses are expected to

49-77

---

12

have less capture efficiency due to the fact that they generally

have

shorter

runs,

a greater variety of solvents, and more dilute

solutions.

(R.

782.)

An overall control efficiency of approxi-

mately 65

is specified in the CTG for these presses.

(CTG,

Ex.

9,

p.

1—2,

R.999,

1014—15,)

However, a representative from the

packaging rotogravure industry commented that it is impossible

to

either achieve or measure specified capture efficiencies for

packaging

in rotogravure presses.

Due to the construction of

flexographic presses, effective hooding and ducting

is difficult

to

construct.

Therefore,

a lower overall control of efficiency

of 60

is considered

to

be

RACT for flexographic presses.

(CTG,

Ex.

9,

p.

1—3.)

Although the retro—fit systems are generally technologically

available, they may not be economically reasonable in all cases.

The

cost

effectiveness

of

both systems depends on the amount of

ink used by the source and the VOC concentration by volume

in the

emissions gas stream.

For example, witnesses testified that both

incineration and carbon adsorption systems are expensive for pack-

aging rotogravure presses which are characterized by short runs,

dilute levels of

solvent, and varied solvent mixtures.

Carbon

adsorption systems are considered more cost effective for publica-

tion rotogravure than incineration due to lower operating costs

and the fact that solvent can be recovered for reuse with this

system.

USEPA found that a carbon adsorber used by a publication

rotogravure press will have a negative annualized cost if a plant

uses at least 7,720 tons of

ink

paper per year at a VOC concen-

tration of 2,400 ppm.

At 3,860

TPY, the same plant

would spend

only 63 cents per

ton for the carbon adsorption system

reductions.

(CTG,

Ex.

9, Table

4-10,)

USEPA recommends that plants emitting less than 100 TPY of VOM

be exempt from RACT requirements.

(R.

132, CTG,

Ex.

9,

Fig.

4-4,

4—5.)

This exemption

level

is based on the

drastic reduction in

cost effectiveness per ton of emissions for plants emitting less

than 100 TPY,

However, the Agency proposed an exemption for facil-

ities emitting less than 1000 TPY uncontrolled emissions of VOM

when averaged over the three preceding calendar years.

The Agency

provides data from the emission inventory which indicates that an

exemption at this level will yield

95,9

of all emission reductions

possible in this category in Illinois,

(R.

164.)

IEPA argues that

this variation from the USEPA guidance should be acceptable to

USEPA because

it is within the

“5

deviation rule.”

The economic impact study (EelS)

focused on costs

for the

four companies which would be subject to additional controls if

the 1000 TPY exemption were utilized.

Two

of these are packaging

rotogravure and two are publication rotogravure.

The EelS

compared company—provided cost estimates based on retrofitting.

However, the larger of the packaging rotogravure

firms indicated

it could convert to low solvent inks if

it were given a compliance

date extension beyond 1982.

Although the EelS does not provide

cost estimates for conversion to low solvent

inks, the Agency’s

49-78

---

13

economic

study found this to be the most economical alternative

in the long run due to the fact that low solvent inks are less

expensive than high solvent inks and minimal retrofitting

would

be required.

For publication rotogravure, one company indicated

that

it

is

currently operating one carbon adsorber and plans

to

put four more on line,

The company indicated that the expected

payback

period

based on recovered solvents is three years.

(EelS,

p.

44; P.C.

18,)

The EelS found a cost effectiveness of $27.50

TPY for pub-

lication rotogravure (carbon adsorption)

and $283.20 TPY for

packaging rotogravure

(incineration),

The combined cost effi-

ciency was estimated to be $116.7 TPY for retrofitting in this

category.

As

noted,

costs and savings associated with conversion

to

low

solvent

inks were not quantified and are expected to be

lower.

The Printing Industry of Illinois Association stated that

the

IEPA’s

proposal

is

“basically an excellent document.”

The

Flexible

Packaging Association stated that the proposal was

“reasonable” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act,

However,

the associations requested the following revisions:

1)

a clari-

fication that “proof presses” are not covered by RACT require-

ments;

2)

a rewording of Section 205(s)(1)(B)

to avoid confusion;

3)

the provision of an optional compliance date extension for

companies

committing to conversion to low solvent

inks; and

4) the provision of a “bubble” option.

B.

Discussion of Rule

Rule 205(m)(b) allows an extension of the compliance date

up

to

1987 consistent with the conditions specified in the rule

which generally reflect the Rhoad~sMemo.

This provision is

included

in

the

rule as

an

incentive for the

development

of

low

solvent

ink

technology and also

to

avoid the submission

of

numerous duplicative variance petitions.

Rule 205(s)(1)(C) and

(D) utilize the control and capture

efficiencies

proposed

by the Agency.

However, as stated

above,

the technical achievability of the proposed 65

capture effi-

ciency for packaging rotogravure was questioned by one company.

To address the concerns expressed by this company (P.C.

#42)

Rule 205(s)(l)(D)(iii) has been modified to state that the over-

all reduction achieved must

be at

least 65

or “the maximum

reduction achievable using good engineering design.”

Rule 205(s) (2)

utilizes the 1000 TPY exemption proposed by

the Agency.

This exemption is justified by the fact that in

Illinois this industry is characterized by large plants which

make up the bulk (95.9)

of the available emission reductions.

(R.

1000—1005.)

Regulation of smaller businesses

for which the

purchase of retrofit equipment or the experimentation with low

49-79

---

14

solvent

inks

is far less cost efficient is not justified at this

time.

The Board notes

that

the Agency proposal used the term

“facility,” but did not

define this

term,

The Board proposal

used

the

term “press” to achieve consistency.

However, applying

the exemption to any “press” emitting less than 1000 TPY unaccept-

ably enlarged the exemption.

To remedy this the Rule,

as present-

ly drafted,

again uses the term “facility” but clarifies that it

includes the aggregate, uncontrolled emissions from rotogravure

and/or flexographic printing presses only.

Notably,

emissions

from “proof presses”

are excluded

from facility emissions under

this

definition.

Several witnesses expressed interest in utilizing a

“bubble”

approach to achieve emission reductions equivalent to those

achievable utilizing the specific technology prescribed by this

rule.

The Board notes that the provisions of the recently adopted

Chapter

2,

Part 212, Alternative Control Strategy rules

will allow

an owner or operator of a press subject

to this rule to demonstrate

the equivalency of an alternative approach.

V.

Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment

—

Rule 205(e)

A.

Introduction to the Issues

In the “Leaks from Petroleum

Refinery Equipment”

category,

an inspection and maintenance program can both reduce VOM emissions

and save petroleum.

The emission reduction

expected from applica-

tion of the Agency proposal was approximately 31,000 TPY.

This is

the largest single category of emission reductions addressed by the

RACT regulations, as well as the most cost efficient to control.

The Economic Impact Study found that the estimated savings of crude

oil torefineries

in Illinois more than offset the cost of the

inspection and maintenance program proposed by these regulations.

While the Agency and the EelS used a 90,2

control efficiency in

calculating reductions expected from inspection and maintenance,

the authors of the EelS found that the level of control efficiency

at which petroleum savings equals annual control

costs is only

19.4.

Therefore,

the implementation of such a program

is cer-

tainly economically reasonable.

However, cost effectiveness does vary component by component.

For example, a model refinery is presumed to have 100,000 leaks,

Seventy—five percent of these

leaks are presumed to be attributable

to pipeline valves, while only 5

are attributable to pump seals.

However,

the Illinois Petroleum Council

(IPC)

testified that 63

of the maintenance costs are associated with monitoring pump seals.

Among other things,

the Petroleum Council proposed an exemption

for components in heavy liquid service,

an

exemption for pump seals

and

flanges, an exemption for gas streams containing less than 30

VOM, monitoring only during the ozone season, deletion of the

49-80

---

15

reporting

requirements,

and

a

reduction

in the monitoring periods.

(See R.

621—635.)

B.

Discussion

of

Rule

The Board rule reflects

a number of the concerns expressed

by the IPC, yet retains the bulk of the emission reductions pre-

dicted to be available from this category during the ozone

season.

First,

the definition of “component” in Rule 201 specifies

particular components but also retains the phrase “but not limited

to” in order to insure that any leaking piece of equipment will

be monitored, reported,

and repaired.

The language has been

amended, however, to specifically exclude all “equipment” in

“heavy liquid service,”

The rationale for excluding valves in

heavy liquid service, as originally proposed, applies equally

to other components, that is,

liquids with very low vapor pres-

sures do not evaporate and leak in significant amounts.

To clear

up an ambiguity raised in the comments,

the Board notes that all

valves which are not externally regulated and all flanges are

excluded from the definition of component.

The proper definition of “Heavy Liquid” was debated in the

record.

The record revealed some ambiguity as to whether the

Agency was proposing a maximum vapor pressure of 0.011 or 0.11

at 70°F. The IPC argued that the 0.011

at 70°Fwas unreason-

able, and could not be conveniently translated into current

refinery test practices which use Reid vapor pressure.

The IPC

proposed 0.1 Reid vapor pressure which translates into a true

vapor pressure of 0.04 psia at 70°F.

In a supplemental comment,

the Agency concurred in this proposal.

A review of the vapor

pressures of various petroleum products indicates that this change

would not enlarge the category of products considered to be in

heavy liquid service, and that it would properly distinguish

products with very low rates of emission.

Therefore, the Board

rule utilizes the true vapor pressure of 0.04 psia at 70°F.

In addition,

a boiling point criteria has been added in response

to comments and to insure consistency with the

federal definition.

Rule 205(l)(4) contains

a general statement of the require-

ments applicable to petroleum refineries,

The information to be

contained in the monitoring program plan is specified in Rule

205(l)(5).

Notably, rather than the tagging requirement for

leaking components,

Rule 205(l)(5) provides the more flexible

requirement that the plan include a description of the method

used to identify various components, including all leaking com-

ponents.

Some commenters

(P.C.

49 and 54) interpreted the word

“mark,” which was used in First Notice proposal,

to mean that a

visible sign would have to be posted with the component.

To

clarify this the term “mark” has been replaced with “identify.”

Any method of identifying components which will provide both

refinery and Agency personnel with the ability to easily inspect,

monitor,

and repair components will meet this requirement.

49-81

---

16

Rule 205(l)(5)(A), as proposed, required that the plan con-

tain a list of all refinery components.

Two commenters stated

that the requirement of

a list is abstract, burdensome and will

inhibit flexibility (P.C.

#49 and #54.)

To avoid placing any

unnecessary

burden

on the industry, the term “list”

has

been

changed to “identification,”

It should be noted that such iden-

tification might be made on a blueprint or inspection form rather

than as a separate listing.

However,

the “identification” must

be of “components,” not simply “process units.”

The Board dis-

agrees that the focus on “components” is abstract.

On the con-

trary,

the definition of “component” in Rule 201

is quite explicit

and detailed.

Since the “component” is the unit which must be

monitored and repaired,

it

is essential to be able to individually

identify and track its leak history.

The Board also disagrees

that this requirement will make the plan overly inflexible.

Modifications to the equipment may require an occasional updating

of the plan,

but it need not require the resubmittal of the entire

plan for the plant.

Lastly,

although identifying 20,000 or more

components

in the initial plan may require several days or even

weeks to prepare, the Board disagrees that this is an unreasonable

requirement.

First,

preparation of the plan

is a one—time effort.

Second, identification of the components to be monitored is essen-

tial to both the implementation and enforcement of a comprehensive

inspection and maintenance program.

The monitoring program

(Rule 205(l)(6))

requires monitoring

only

twice

a

year, before and during the ozone season, as opposed

to the quarterly monitoring proposed

in the Federal CTG’s and the

Agency proposal.

The limitation to the ozone season is justified

by the fact that outdoor inspection and maintenance of this equip-

ment is particularly difficult in the winter in Illinois and

emissions during the colder winter months do not pose an ozone

threat in Illinois and the Northeastern United States,

As proposed for First Notice, Rule 205(l)(6)(A)(i)

and

(ii)

required that various components be tested prior to May 1st of

each year and that a subset of those components be retested prior

to August 1st of each year.

Several commenters stated that the

May 1st deadline would be inconvenient due to the numerous

components to be tested, the cold weather in the early spring,

various

labor—management constraints, and the timing of process

unit turnarounds.

(See P.C.

#33,

#49,

#54.)

The IPC proposed

that the dates by which monitoring must be completed be changed

to June 20 and September 30.

IPC argues that this will not

adversely affect air quality because no violations of the 0.12

standard,

i.e., two excursions of the standard constitute a

violation, occurred during May of the last three years and only

six violations occurred in June over the last three

years.

However, the data presented,

in

fact,

demonstrates that in some

areas the highest readings recorded all

year were recorded in

May and June.

In one instance,

an exceedance of 0.124 occurred

in late May and in 22 instances the first or second highest

reading of the year occurred in May or June.

49-82

---

17

The

Board

notes that other Chapter

2 regulations

set

April

1

to

November

1

as the parameters of the “ozone season.”

The May

1

date

(rather than April

1) was used in the First

Notice

proposal

to accommodate the concerns expressed in the record by the IPC

about cold weather and the length of time needed to perform the

monitoring.

It should be noted that using the May

1 date, repairs

and retesting would not be required to be completed until as

late

as May 22.

Given the severe weather that can be experienced in Illinois

in March and April, and the relatively low incidence of high ozone

readings in May, the Board is persuaded that the May 1 date can

safely be changed to June

1, but cannot be pushed back to June 30

as requested by the IPC.

However, the Board will require that

repair and retesting be completed by June

1 as well.

From the

IPC’s comments, it appears that this can be accomplished.

In

addition,

the rule has been changed to provide that the reports

may be submitted to the Agency 30 days after monitoring

is com-

pleted to provide more time for careful preparation of the report.

The rule also states that monitoring to satisfy Rule 205(l)(6)(A)

(i) and

(ii) may not be performed before certain dates.

This is

designed to insure that the monitoring, testing and repair is

performed at a time when it will provide the greatest assurance

of preventing leaks,

The August

1 date has been retained because

fewer components will be checked at that time and because August

represents the most critical ozone period.

To insure that problem components receive the attention

necessary to minimize leaking, Rule 205(l)(6)(C) authorizes the

Agency to require more frequent monitoring

for components which

have been documented as having a history of leaking.

The burden

of proving such a history has been documented will be on the Agency.

The Board recognizes that experience gained in carrying out

the monitoring program should enable owners and operators to dis-

tinguish more and less frequent leakers.

Thus,

it is desirable

to have flexibility in the rules to adapt the monitoring, record—

keeping and reporting requirements

to the needs of each refinery.

Rule 205(l)(9) provides this flexibility if the owner or operator

can demonstrate that an alternative program will provide an

equivalent inspection and maintenance capability.

This mechanism

resembles a “bubble” approach to refinery leaks,

however, use of

the recently adopted Chapter

2 Alternative Control Strategy Rules

would be an unsually complicated approach to “netting”

the thou-

sands of small refinery leaks.

The “equivalency” demonstration

required by this specialized rule is the equivalency of the

ability to identify and repair leaks,

rather than an equivalency

of emissions, which would be extremely burdensome

to quantify.

The Rule does not include an exemption for gaseous streams

containing

less than 30

VOM as proposed by the IPC.

Notably,

the

Radian Study indicates that an 85-95

emission reduction can be

achieved by controlling components in hydrogen service.

Also, no

accurate count of the number of units affected nor the particular

hardship involved in monitoring these units was given in the record.

49-83

---

18

On a related issue,

the Agency proposal amended the defini-

tion of VON to eliminate the specialized definition of VOM adopted

for Rule 205(l)(l—3) in the RACT

I proceeding.

Nothing

in the

Statement of Reasons or the record explains the purpose of this

amendment,

therefore,

it appears to have been an inadvertent

omission

and the 1.5 psia definition applicable to those RACT

I

categories

has

been

retained.

VI,

Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Parts

A.

Introduction

to

the

Issues

The Federal CTG for this category encompasses a wide variety

of metal products such as combines,

tractors,

lawn mowers, mixers,

typewriters, pumps,

fans and metal door frames.

Nearly all

manufactured metal parts and products not presently covered by Rule

205(n)

(RACT

I) are included under

the new proposed rule.

Although

268 Illinois companies fall within the SIC categories subject to

this CTG,

those that emit less than 25 tons per year are exempt

under

existing

Rule

205(n)(3),

With

this

exception,

145

companies

are potentially affected.

USEPA has recognized six applicable control technologies for

the surface coating of miscellaneous metals:

water—borne coatings

without electro-deposition, water—borne coatings with electro

deposition, higher solids coatings, powder coatings, the use of

a carbon adsorber,

and the use of an afterburner.

The total

uncontrolled emissions from Illinois companies in this category

is 33,870 tons per year.

By application of the Agency proposal,

IEPA predicted

that emissions could be reduced by 24,494 tons.

The Agency proposed a single

set of compliance paint

specifications for the Miscellaneous Metals category in general.

However, there was

a great deal of debate in the record as to

the applicability of these paints to the specialized requirements

of heavy—duty,

off—road vehicles,

such as tractors and trains,

and to outboard marine equipment.

Both the size and endurance

requirements of this equipment create special problems.

Extensive

testimony was offered at the hearings by Illinois manufacturers

on the lack of proof of the commercial availability of water-based,

high—solids and powder coatings for their products.

All of these

companies have run tests and found varying degrees of success in

the application of various compliance paints.

Chipping and run-

ning of the paints were experienced in some trial

runs.

Because

of the size of the equipment involved and the Illinois climate,

prolonged air drying times or the need to construct giant dryers

and warehouse drying space for water—based paints

is considered

prohibitively expensive.

Although one paint company and the

Agency argued that compliance paints have been successfully

tested and are available, these arguments were based on a limited

number of trial runs and even fewer instances of actual production

use for this type of equipment.

(R.

1054—99.)

49-84

---

19

Several manufacturers proposed both in testimony and in com-

ments that a separate category be established for these off—road,

heavy—duty vehicles for which higher solvent coatings would be

accepted as RACT,

(R,

349—SO;

P.C.

39,41,

44,

82.)

A recent

USEPA policy statement (Exhibit 55) generally supports this re-

quest by recognizing that the CTG prescribed compliance paints

have not yet been fully commercialized for automobile top coat

operations and recommending postponing final compliance dates

to

the end of 1986 to encourage development of high solids and water-

borne coating development.

The problems experienced with the

automobile coatings are similar to those

faced by the heavy—duty,

off—road vehicle product industries,

Another manufacturer testified that some of their products,

which include marine propulsion devices and off—shore drilling

equipment, are subject to unique salt—water and corrosive envi-

ronments which make it impossible to meet either the general or

extreme performance coatings specifications.

(R.

304—332.)

A

witness representing a major paint supplier confirmed that for

the “very specialized high temperature resistant coatings” re-

quired for outboard marine products there is “no possibility of

any high temperature coatings technology coming to bear, at least

in the next eight to ten years.”

(R.

1094-5.)

The manufacturer

also argued that the exemption proposed by the Agency and tJSEPA

for this category,

“the exterior of marine vessels,” was ambig-

uous with regard

to the “exposed propulsion equipment” which

they manufacture.

Although improved transfer efficiency is recognized as a

means of reducing emissions, neither the U.S. EPA CTG nor the

Agency proposal define RACT for upgraded transfer efficiency.

Several public comments

(P.C.

44,

45) suggest that at least

a

“norm” for transfer efficiency should be defined in the rules

in

order to simplify use of improved transfer efficiency in alterna-

tive control strategies.

The Agency’s Technical Support Document:

states that a company considering such a strategy would have the

opportunity to demonstrate that their system provided equivalent

control under existing Rule 205(n)(2)(8).

Under Existing Rule

205(n)(5)(B), transfer efficiency is to be determined by methods,

procedures or standards approved by USEPA or the Agency.

In addition, testimony was received, largely from paint sup-

pliers,

indicating that paints using the solvents 1,1,1 trichloro—

ethane and dichloromethane would provide

a compliance alternative

for certain surface coaters in the Miscellaneous Metals category.

The Economic Impact Study predicted that the costs of com-

pliance with the Agency proposal for this category range between

$1,434.7 per ton in Non—attainment counties

to $1,032.0 per ton

in Attainment counties.

(See

EcIS,

p.

66,

Table

3.12.)

The costs

are based on 93

of the affected sources switching to high—solids

or water—borne coatings and 7

retrofitting with incineration units.

The EcIS notes that 41.4

of the total

annual costs are associated

49-85

---

20

with incineration and that this cost will be lower if the two non-

exempt solvents are made available to companies which cannot use

other compliance coatings.

Exemptions, changes, and deferred com-

pliance plans and dates provided in the Board rule are also not

reflected in the EcIS figures and would significantly reduce

the

projected costs.

B.

Discussion of Rule

In response to the evidence presented by several Illinois

industries and comments received in the First Notice period as

to the non—availability of the compliance options contained in

the Agency proposal for the manufacture and repair of a variety

of heavy—duty, off-highway products,

a separate category has been

created for these coating lines.

This new category,

“Heavy Off—

Road Vehicle Products,”

is defined in Rule 201 and compliance

coating specifications are listed in Rule 205(n)(l1(K).

In addi-

tion, based on evidence in the record and USEPA findings that

extreme performance top coats

for air—dried coating lines will

not come on line for production uses until the end of 1986,

the

rule is drafted to allow the final compliance date for these par-

ticular coating lines

to be extended

to no later than December 31,

1986 if the requirements of Rule 205(m)(5) are met.

Other coating

lines in the Miscellaneous Metals category must comply with the

compliance date in Rule 205(j),

that is, December 31, 1983.

Comments received during the First Notice period

(P.C.

44,

45)

indicate that there is some ambiguity as to whether “transfer

efficiency” may be used to demonstrate control efficiencies

equivalent to the Rule 205(n)(l) coating

limitations or to the

Rule 205(n)(2)(A) afterburner system.

The difficulty in stating

that increased transfer efficiency can be balanced against higher

solvent content is that no RACT norm has been prescribed

for

transfer efficiency.

Without an established “baseline,”

so to

speak, the Agency believes the appropriateness of using improved

transfer efficiency should be judged on a case—by—case basis.

Given the lack of substantive data in the record on transfer

efficiency,

the Board must agree with this position, and there-

fore declines to specify a particular transfer efficiency or

that transfer efficiency will always be an acceptable alternative.

However, this should not mean that the company would necessarily

have to improve its transfer system,

since a company may already

be using a transfer system that surpasses the norm for the industry.

Using its existing superior transfer system,

the company may be

able to use higher solvent paints and still achieve the emission

reduction which another plant could only achieve by using

a com-

pliance paint.

In response to testimony on the lack of availability in the

foreseeable future of compliance coatings for either

“the exterior

of marine vessels” or “marine propulsion equipment,” these parti-

cular surface coating operations are exempted from the definition

of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products in Rule 201.

Although

49-86

---

21

the Agency testified that further definition of the term “exterior

of marine vessel” would be a preferable approach, no such defini-

tion was proposed.

The explicit reference to propulsion equipment

is added to minimize the ambiguity on this term.

Several comments were received in the First Notice period

concerning specialized paint requirements for a variety of other

coating operations, e.g.,

steel pail and drum coating, automotive

air conditioners, etc.

(See P.C.

40,

58,

59.)

It appears that

the problems experienced by these industries do not involve the

size and endurance problems associated with other industries,

which are exempted or handled separately in the rule.

Due to

the variety of operations involved and the limited amount of

information in this record on each operation,

it is impossible

to write a rule or even several rules which will address all of

these circumstances.

Rather, the particular problems raised by

these commentors may appropriately be raised in a petition for

variance from the general

rule.

It should be noted that it

is

unnecessary to include a special variance provision in these

regulations because both the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act and the Board’s Procedural Rules currently provide this

avenue of relief.

Contrary to the concern expressed by some witnesses and

commentors, the Board notes that there is no conflict between

Rule 205(f)

and 205(n)(1).

Existing Rule 205(n)(6) states that

“no coating line subject to 205(n)(l)

is required to meet 205(f)

after the date by which the coating line is required to

‘neet

205(n)(l).”

No legitimate purpose

is served by generally invali-

dating the application of Rule 205(f) prior to the time that

a

source comes into compliance with Rule 205(n)(l).

Special hard-

ship,

test runs, etc. that cause a source to have trouble comply-

ing with Rule 205(f) prior to the 205(n)(l) compliance dates may

appropriately be addressed by filing a variance petition with the

Board.

The Board also notes that the exemption of the 1,1,1 tn—

chloroethane and methylene chloride, the relaxed standards and

compliance dates

for Large,

Heavy—Duty Equipment,

the opportunity

to develop alternative control strategies, and the deferred com-

pliance dates

for non—contiguous Attainment counties will reduce

the economic impact of the regulation on industries

in this

category significantly.

VII.

Petroleum Liquid Storage

in External Floating Roof Tanks

A.

Introduction to the Issues

Existing Rule 205(a)(2)(A) requires petroleum storage tanks

in Illinois equipped with floating roofs to use a “primary seal”

around the rim to close the space between

the roof edge and tank

wall.

The CTG and the Agency proposal recommend retrofitting

49-87

---

22

these roofs with an additional

“secondary seal” to reduce wind—

induced evaporation as

RACT.

For tanks containing gasoline,

secondary seals have been shown to provide

a 97.8

control effi-

ciency.

An IPC survey identified 362 tanks which would require

retrofitting under this rule.

(R.

609, Also see Ex.

26.)

The

total uncontrolled emissions from this category are 17,300

TPY.

The Agency predicted their proposal would reduce emissions by 77.

Existing Rule 205(o) (3)

generally prescribes requirements

applicable to all petroleum storage tanks.

The Agency proposal,

as amended, recommended a “clean-up” of Rule 205(a) (3) (A)

and

the addition of Rule 205(a)(3)(C) containing additional spe-

cialized requirements for external

floating roofs, including a

secondary seal,

“gap” limitations,

and semi—annual inspections.

New Rule 205(a)(3)(D) provides exemptions to Rule 205(o)(3)(C)

for certain types of tanks equipped with alternative control

devices and for tanks used to store waxy, heavy pour crude oil.

Although retrofitting petroleum storage tanks

is technically

achievable, technical debate in the record focused on the effi-

ciency of the secondary seal requirements for certain petroleums,

the equivalence of other seals,

and the feasibility of maintaining

zero gap between the tank and the seal.

The IPC argued that deposition on the tank wall

in tanks

containing waxy, heavy pour crude oil would render a secondary

seal inoperative

(Ex. 29A and B,

H.

685-687.)

The IPC presented

extensive evidence on parameters of waxy,

heavy crude oils which

were not contained

in

the Agency proposal.

The Agency proposal

focused only on crude oils with a “pour point” of 50°F. IPC

recommended a “pour pointu~of

100

F,

a paraffin content test,

and a viscosity test all be available as alternative tests

for

identifying crude oils which form waxy,

heavy deposits.

The

evidence presented by the IPC was not rebutted and thus the

Board presumes that the rationale for exempting crudes which

leave a deposit on the tank wall also applies to crudes identi-

fied by these additional tests.

The IPC also argued that the equivalency of various other

seals should be defined as RACT by the Board.

The Agency re-

sponded that they have identified several equivalent seals and

that Rule 205(o)(3)(D)(iii) will provide them with an opportunity

to review and approve additional

seals,

Industry testified that “zero gap” is not achievable on a

continuous

basis,

and that generally a

1/8 inch gap for 95

of

the circumference and 1/2 inch gap

for the remaining 5

should be

considered RACT in order to avoid recurring technical violations

of the standard.

The Agency proposal would allow an accum~late~

area of gaps exceeding 1/8 inch in width equal to 1.0 inch

per

foot of tank diameter.

IPC also argued that the semi—annual

inspection was not

49-88

---

23

required by the Federal CTG and that annual inspections were

existing industry practice.

The Agency and the IPC concur that the retrofitting costs

per tank are approximately $20,625,

(H.

609.)

The Economic

Impact Study found

a somewhat higher capital cost plus annual

control costs

of $5,900,

However,

the Economic Impact Study

orginally also found that there would be an annual petroleum

credit from saving

5 million gallons of gasoline annually which

would totally off—set all costs associated with the Agency pro-

posal.

The control efficiency utilized in the study yielding

the

high

petroleum

savings

was disputed by the IPC, particularly

with regard to crude oil tanks which have a lower emission rate.

There was also a debate on the proper emission factors to be used.

The authors of the study revised their findings on the basis of

USEPA’s revised emission factors

(AP—42,

4/81 Revision)

and found

a smaller emission reduction and petroleum credit for crude oil

tanks, resulting

in a cost/effectiveness ratio of $2,255.8—2,334.8

per ton.

The combined cost/effectiveness for gasoline and crude

tanks in Illinois was revised to $24.l—453.3 per ton.

Costs in

Attainment areas, though less than

in Non—attainment areas on a

per ton basis,

are higher overall due to the location of a greater

number of crude tanks in Attainment areas.

In its final comment, the IPC reiterated its contention that

these figures are too high to be considered cost—effective and that

the amount of VOM reductions obtainable

by application of secondary

seals to crude tanks are too small

‘to justify such an expenditure.

(P.C.

#49.)

In its

final comment,

the IPC also interpreted the

Board’s proposed opinion as stating that the exemption proposed

for “Heavy, Waxy Pour Crude Oil” would result in a better cost—

effectiveness ratio

for crude oil tank retrofitting.

The point

made in the proposed opinion was that the costs to the industry

as

a whole would be reduced by the exemption.

The Board agrees

that this does not,

however, affect the cost—effectiveness of

secondary seals on a per tank basis.

B.

Discussion of Rule

In response to comments received during the First Notice

period,

the Board has determined that it is appropriate to exempt

all crude oil tanks

from the secondary seal requirements.

There

are several reasons for taking this approach rather than the ap-

proach taken in the proposed rule,

i.e.,

exempting only tanks which

contained “Waxy,

Heavy Pour Crude Oil.”

First,

although approxi-

mately two-fifths of the tanks

in the state hold crude oil, they

emit VON at a

low rate, and thus the emission reduction obtainable

by retrofitting approximately 156 tanks

is quite

small

(373 TPY).

Second, the workability of the tests for “Waxy,

Heavy Pour Crude

Oil” has been questioned.

(P.C.

#37.)

Third, the difference

between the number of tanks which would require retrofitting if

the exemption covered only those which had technical problems due

to

“Waxy,

Heavy Pour Crude Oil”,

as opposed to all crude tanks,

49-89

---

24

is very small.

In conclusion,

the low cost—effectiveness, coupled

with the small quantity of emissions at stake, indicate that

secondary seals should not he considered RACT for crude oil tanks.

The Board rule adopts the~Agency’sproposed gap rule allowing

1/8 inch gap equal

to 1,0 inch~’per foot of tank diameter.

This

is not a zero gap policy,

but provides

a uniform standard which

is somewhat narrower than the IPC proposal.

The semi—annual inspection proposal has been modified to

a single inspection to take place prior to May 1st of each year.

The seal gap should be inspected at this time also.

The May 1st

date

is geared

to the beginning of the ozone season in Illinois,

and,

to be most effective,

it is anticipated that inspections

will take place within the months immediately preceding this date.

The Board agrees with the Agency that the equivalency of

other seals may be determined by the Agency pursuant to Rule

205(o) (3) (D) (iii).

VIII,

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

A.

Introduction to the Issues

For commercial

and industrial cleaners, under the Agency

proposal RACT technology is carbon adsorption plus certain work

practices.

Coin—operated cleaners need only comply with the work

practice requirements.

The carbon adsorption systems are techni-

cally available and in wide use among

large dry cleaners due to

the

fact that it is

economical

to

capture and re—use the solvent.

The capital cost for this system at

a “model” commercial plant

is estimated to be approximately $5,500 or $1,400 annually.

Esti-

mated solvent recovery valued at $2,100 annually would create a

$700 annual gain.

Comparable,

though larger,

figures are esti-

mated for industrial plants.

Notably,

however,

the EcIS found

the cost effectiveness of the proposed work practices for coin—

operated plants was $2,333 per ton of emissions even after con-

sidering a solvent recovery credit,

The total VOC emission reductions estimated to be available

from this category under IEPA’s proposal are 2,100 TPY.

Approx-

imately 1,600 commercial,

industrial and coin-operated dry

cleaners could be affected by these regulations.

IEPA has permit

information

for only 115 of these.

Average VOC emissions for a

permitted facility without controls are estimated to be 7

TPY.

There are an estimated 793 coin—operated dry cleaning facilities

in Illinois and the model coin—operated facility with two units

emits 0.3 TPY.

The Illinois Fabricare Association testified that many of

the commercial dry cleaners in Illinois are far smaller than the

USEPA model plant and use less solvent.

Thus,

their “payback”

49-90

---

25

on recycled solvent is smaller and the initial capital expendi-

ture is more burdensome,

Among other things, the Fabricare Association recommended

exemption for small dry cleaners using

less than 30 gallons per

month and that alternatives to the IEPA proposal be made avail-

able for the draining and drying of filtration cartridges.

B.

Discussion of the Rule

Given the small amount of emissions produced by each plant

and the difficulty of enforcing regulations with regard to many

small plants,

the Board rule adopts the Fabricare Association’s

recommended 30 gallons per month exemption level.

In doing so,

the Board notes that many of these small dry cleaners are within

the purview of the recently adopted Illinois Regulatory Flexibility

Act which mandates special regulatory consideration for small

businesses.

Testimony in the record indicated that many of these

operations employ under

10 people and have an annual net profit of

less than $3,000,

The final rule has been amended to completely

exempt facilities which are coin—operated or which use less than

30 gallons of perchloroethylene per month primarily because to

attempt to enforce the work practice requirements at facilities

which are not permitted

is almost impossible.

Other changes have been made in the Agency proposal to pro-

vide additional flexibility in

‘the work practices and emission

reduction requirements while retaining equivalent environmental

protection.

IX.

Pneumatic Rubber Tires

A.

Introduction to the

Issues

Four manufacturing processes are addressed in this category:

undertread cementing, tread end cementing, bead dipping, and green

tire spraying.

Carbon adsorption or incineration retrofitting is

technically available for all

four processes.

A capture system is

also required.

Water—based coatings,

as a substitute

for solvents,

are also available

for

green

tire

spraying.

Two Illinois plants will be affected by the undertread re-

quirement.

Carbon

adsorption

with solvent recovery is the most

economical alternative

for this process with a cost effectiveness

of $312/ton of emission,

The “bead—dipping” process described in

the

CTG is apparently

not used by any of the three Illinois plants.

While the CTG

process emits

8.2 grams per tire, the Illinois process emits 6.8

grams per tire.

(P.C.

11,

p.

6.)

The “tread—end cementing” process

in the three Illinois

49-91

---

26

plants is, at least largely,

manual rather than automatic.

Data

on manual tread—end cementing indicates emissions lower than the

CTG estimates of

15 grams

per tire for

automatic,

There was

agreement in the record that manual tread-end cementing should

be considered

equivalent

to

RACT,

Water—based

coatings are considered most

economical

for

green tire spraying.

No

of the three Illinois

pneumatic rubber

tire plants already

use

water-based

coatings and the third is

planning to switch over to it.

However, the tire manufacturers

dispute the availability of 5

VOM coatings for the outside of

tires.

They

testified that a substitute

water—based

coating for

the normal solvent—based mold—release compound used on the out-

side of tires will require

a 10

VOM content.

The EcIS found

the cost effectiveness

of

water-based paints to be $236/ton of

emission,

Representatives of the

tire industry

indicated that they

would like

to

see

a

“net”

per

tire

emission

limitation of 59

grams,

rather than process—by—process capture and reduction

requirements,

The Agency proposal

requires capture systems

to have

a

minimum capture efficiency

of 65.

USEPA has

indicated they

believe 85

capture

efficiency

represents

RACT

for the industry.

However, the two Illinois tire plants having undertread cementing

operations point out that the USEPA’s reduction efficiency figures

are based on the single carbon adsorption unit in operation in the

country.

They

argue

that

even

the

model used did not achieve the

CTG

efficiency

levels

and

that

Illinois

plants

can

be expected

‘to

achieve even

less

due

to

shorter

residence

times,

(P.C.

11, p.

3.)

B.

Discussion of the Rule

It appears the Agency inadvertently included 20 inch tires

in the rule by use of the phrase

“up to 20,0 inches.”

These tires

are considered

heavy—duty

truck

tires

and

are

not

included

in the

CTG.

(Ex.

21;

pp.

11—12,)

Goodyear

and

Firestone

suggested “up

to,

but

not

including”

20

inch

tires as

‘the appropriate cut—off

point.

To

clarify

this,

the

definition

of Pneumatic Rubber Tire

Manufacture has been modified

in

this

fashion.

As noted above commentors have argued strenuously that the

65

capture efficiency described in Rule 205(t)(l)(A)

is unachiev-

able.

(PC

29, PC 38.)

Kelly—springfield Tire,

a subsidiary of

Goodyear Tire states that the best overall efficiency that they

have been

able

to

achieve

on

a

new undertread cementing capture

and control system is

60,

They

estimate

that

by

retrofitting

their Kelly—Springfield system they will be able to achieve only

a 50

overall

reduction,

Using

a

90

control

system

(carbon

ad-

sorption or

incineration),

this

translates into a 55.5

capture

efficiency.

In

a

subsequent

comment,

Kelly—Springfield

suggested

a technical

design

standard

to

be

used

in place of a numerical

49-92

---

27

limitation for the capture system.

However,

there is

no other

information in the record describing the impact of using these

paramters.

In light of

the

extensive comments received on this

subject, the

Board

is persuaded that the retrofitting of the

Illinois plants affected by this rule

is unlikely to produce a

capture efficiency as high as is suggested in

the CTG.

The Board

notes that RACT requirements are applicable

to existing, rather

than new, plants

and

must

represent feasible retrofit technology.

As redrafted,

the

rule

states

that

the undertread cementing pro-

cess must achieve

a 55.5

capture efficiency,

New Rule 205(t) (3)

allows the use of different approaches

to any of the regulated processes which can be demonstrated to be

equivalent on the basis of VOM emitted, e.g.

that manual tread-

end cementing and the existing Illinois head-dipping process.

In response to comments

made

during

the

First Notice Period

(P.C.

51 and 38),

a specific

alternative

emission

limitation

of

ten

grams per tire or less

for

the

tread—end

cementing

operation has

been included in

Section

205(t)(3).

Its

purpose

is to provide

a quantifiable limitation which can be used easily in determining

the equivalency of an alternative volatile organic emission reduc-

tion system

for

this

process.

The

ten

grams

per

tire

limitation

has been recommended by USEPA for inclusion in a proposed

New

Source Performance Standard

for

this

operation and

is considered

to be achievable with the manual tread—end cementing process cur-

rently used by Illinois tire manufacturers,

The Board declines

to create

a specialized

“bubble” rule for this category.

However,

a “grams—per—tire” approach covering multiple processes may be

proposed under the Board’s recently adopted Alternative Control

Strategy rules

(Chapter

2,

Part 212),

X.

Synthesized Pharmaceuticals

A.

Introduction to the

Issues

Emission reductions available by application of RACT It in

the synthesized pharmaceuticals category represent one—half of

one percent of the total

emission reductions believed

to be

available in Illinois, or 300 TPY,

(See EcIS,

Table

3.19,

p.

81.)

Although USEPA identified

40 pharmaceutical plants

in Illinois,

only five of these plants synthesize pharmaceuticals,

Each plant

may contain a number of

different

sources

of

VOC emissions, but

IEPA found that only four

point

sources,

reactors,

centrifuges,

crystallizers,

arid dryers have the potential to emit greater than

iS pounds per day.

IEPA has proposed to exempt sources with the

potential to emit less than

15 pounds per day.

Retrofitting the

remaining sources with condensers,

scrubbers,

or carbon adsorbers

is considered RACT by USEPA.

(Ex.

6.)

While it is technically feasible

to achieve a 90

reduction

in emissions from these point sources by retrofitting,

it is not

49-93

---

28

cost

efficient

due to the small

rate

of emissions.

The EcIS

estimated a cost

effectivenss of $8,092.60 per ton

for this

category.

(See

EcIS, Table 3.19,

p.

81,)

B.

Discussion of

the

Rule

The Board

finds that

application of the

recommended

retrofit

technology

is

not

economically

reasonable

for

Illinois

plants in

this category

due to the insignificant level

of

emissions

which

would be

captured

and

the

expense

of

the

equipment

involved.

XI.

Compliance Dates

Many of

the compliance dates originally

proposed by the

Agency have become outdated in the

course

of this rulemaking.

Rule 205(j) adopts December

31,

1983

as

the final compliance date

for Rule 205(n)(1)(J)

and

(K),

Rule

205(o)(3),

Rule 205(s),

Rule

205(t), and

Rule

205(u)(1)(A)—(C),

This

deadline

is

designed

to provide sufficient time after promulgation of the rule for

internal planning decisions,

equipment

design, any necessary

agency approvals,

delivery,

installation

and

“debugging.”

Rule 205(m)(4),

(5)

and

(6) establish

special plan submittal

and compliance dates

for petroleum leak monitoring,

low—solvent

top coating development programs

for

Heavy,

Off-Highway Vehicle

Products and Diesel—Electric Locomotive Products,

and low—solvent

ink developments

programs.

It is anticipated

that.

petroleum

monitoring programs

will

be carried out for the

1983 ozone season.

The low—solvent

coating

and

ink

development

programs

are eligible

for an extension

of the compliance deadline until

1986

and 1987,

respectively, if the

compliance plan provisions

and other commit-

ments are met,

In the

Board

proposal, the deadline

for implementation of

dry cleaner work practices

meeting the

requirements

of

Rule

205(u)(l)(D)—(G) was December 31,

1982.

It was intended that this

would allow several months for planning as well

as purchasing and

hiring if these are found to

be

necessary.

However,

since this

rule will not be

finalized until

the end of the year,

this com-

pliance date has been

changed

to

May

1,

1983

to

allow

for the

planning necessary and to correspond with the beginning of the

ozone season.

The deadlines

for submittal of compliance

plans

for emission

sources subject to Rule l04(h)(l) are generally adopted as pro-

posed by the Agency.

Since

these dates are based on a certain time

period after promulgation of the rule, changes were not necessary.

However, new subsections

(2)

and

(3) have been added to provide

dates for compliance plan submissions by sources subject to new

Rules

205(j)(2) and

(3),

Souces subject to Rule 205(j~(2)have

a December 31,

1987 compliance date and must submit compliance

plans one year in advance of that date or by December

31,

1986.

49-94

---

29

Sources subject to Rules 205(j)(3) must comply within one year

from the date of redesignation and their compliance plans are

due within

90 days after

the date of redesignation.

Rule 104(a),

addressing the requirement of a compliance plan for emission

sources not

in compliance, has been reworded

to improve clarity.

It should be noted that compliance plan submittal dates

for

the low solvent development programs listed

in Rules 205(m)(5)

and

(6)

are December

31,

1983.

These later

submittal dates are

adopted in recognition of the fact that commitments

to be made

in the plans will require significant study.

In particular,

if

planned reductions do not occur by an interim date

Eor emission

sources utilizing the low—solvent ink programs, retrofit tech-

nology must he implemented.

(See Rule 205(m)(6)(C).)

Board Members ~J.Dumelle and N. Werner concurred.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify th~~he above Proposed Opinion ~as

adopted on the

~

day of

~,

1982 by a vote of ~-O.

Christan

L.

Moff4’tLLJClerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

49-95