A. General Technical and Economic Issues

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 27, 1982

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R80—5

RACT II RULES,

CHAPTER

2:

 AIR POLLUTION

)

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by

I.

 Goodman):

I.

 General Introduction

This proceeding is undertaken pursuant to the Board’s

authority in Section

 10 of the Environmental Protection Act

 (Act)

to adopt regulations to promote the purposes of the Title II 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).

 It is the purpose of these

regulations 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 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.

“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

 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

47-197

2

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, USEPA 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’s describing 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’s verbatim.

Any

greater deviation from the CTG’s must be supported by the par-

ticular needs of the state.

USEPA issued CTG’s covering 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.

 Perchioroethylene 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.

II.

 Statewide Applicability of RACT II Controls

A.

 General Technical and Economic Considerations

The Agency proposal did not propose to change the policy

adopted in RACT I of requiring RACT in both Attainment and

Non—attainment

 (NAA)

 counties.

 However, several

 industrial

representatives informally proposed such a change and presented

arguments on this issue.

Generally,

 the arguments made for applying RACT II only in

NAA are the following:

47-198

3

1.

 The Federal Clean Air Act requires that RACT be applied

only in NAA.

 Illinois industries

 have

 expressed concern

that they would he at a competitive disadvantage vis—a-vis

states which have adopted RACT only for NAA’s.

(R.

 879,

1328—29, 1380—8L)

2.

 RACT should not be applied in attainment counties

unless there is quantifiable evidence that emissions

 from

attainment counties are impacting NAA counties,

(R.

 581-2,

874—876, 882~-886j

3.

 It is more cost-~efficientto control dirtier areas.

The benefits to he achieved by controlling sources in

attainment areas are not as great as those which can be

 achieved by controlling

in

 NAA.

 (Econ.

R.

 573—4,)

4.

 Statewide controls are not necessary to assure a

margin for growth.

(R.

550~560,)

The arguments made for retaining statewide applicability

are the following:

1.

 ~neTransort~carhons

Testimony in the record of this proceeding cited several

studies indicating that emission sources as far as 85 miles

away may contribute to ozone

 levels

 in other areas.

(R.

 44.)

Steve Tamplin, Manager of the Agency Air Quality Planning

Section, testified 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.”

The RACT

 I record, which originally adopted a statewide

approach for RACT,

 considered ozone formation in greater

detail than does the present record.

 That record contains

significant testimony on the phenomena of long—range trans-

port of hydrocarbons over distances ranging from 5—1,000

miles.

 (See Opinion of the Board,

R.

 78—3,

4,

pp.

 4—10;

also Exhibits 36 and 37; and R.

 1574-5 in the RACT

 I record;

also see Illinois SIP, Volume

p.

 10—6.)

2.

The

 Existence of Rd

 veiFliqhAmbientOzorte_Levels

in Many

Rural

~

Areas

In 1980,

 excursions of

the

 0.12

ppm

 one—hour ozone

standard were monitored in a number of rural,

 small town,

and small urban attainment areas.

 In addition, levels ap-

proaching the standard (0,10-0.11 ppm) have been measured

in rural areas such as LaSalle, Braidwood and Robinson,

Illinois.

(R,

 841-2.

 Also see 1980 Annual Air Quality

Report,

 Ill. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of

Air Pollution Control,)

47-199

3.

 Retention of An Adequate Margin for Growth in

Attainment Areas

New industrial growth in attainment areas could be

jeopardized if a margin for growth is not preserved.

If

an attainment or “unclassified” status

 is lost,

 “off—sets”

will be required for new hydrocarbon sources in the area.

Statewide applicability maximizes the opportunity for growth

of hydrocarbon emitting industries and minimizes bureaucratic

“red tape.”

(R.

 842—4,

 880.)

4.

 Adverse Impacts of Shifting Regulatory Requirements

If RACT is applicable only in NAA, as the classification

of a county is changed,

 e.g.,

 from “unclassified” to NAA or

from NAA to attainment,

 the equipment, process, and/or pro-

gram requirements would change.

 (R. 845-846;

 889—91.)

5.

 Minimize Industry-Wide Inequities

If RACT is required only in NAA,

 a large pollution

source in an attainment area may avoid RACT, while a small

source in the same category, but located in an NAA, will

be required to put on even greater controls to achieve

reductions required of Illinois by USEPA.

(R.

 846.)

 This

is most obvious in the Graphic Arts category where if a

single

 large emission source in an attainment area were not

regulated,

 the 1,000 TPY exemption level would have to be

lowered to assure attainment of the ozone standards.

(R.

 1009;

also see EcIS,

 p. 95.)

6.

 Minimize Inequities Between Counties

The 1979 SIP points out that there is no clear rationale

for Springfield being classified as NAA, while Decatur is

attainment.

 (Illinois SIP, Volume

5,

 p. 10—8.)

 If the

transport of emissions generated in one county causes a

neighboring county to be classified as NAA, it

 is futile to

regulate

 industries only in the county experiencing the

ozone, and not in the county generating the hydrocarbons.

7.

 Heavy Burden on Few Non—Attainment Areas

“Unclassified” and “Attainment” counties make up

 81 out

of 101 counties in Illinois.

 The burden for achieving all

VOC reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment of the

ozone standards throughout the state will

 fall entirely

on

the 20 NAA’s if the rule is made applicable only in NAA.

(For a concise statement of the IEPA’s arguments see:

R.

 829—849.)

47-200

Stecific

Issues

The Board agrees with the Agency statement that “the observed

long—range

transport

phenomenon

must

accounted

for

any

com-

prehensive

hydrocarbon

 control

program

designed

successfully

deal

with

ambient

ozone

concentrations

excess

the

national

standard.”

(R.

840-841,)

The

uncertainty

surrounding

the

 exact

and

quantifiable

identification

the

source

existing

ozone

problems

across

the

state

necessitates

application

all

 hydro-

carbon controls on a statewide basis,

 There is strong logic and

 evidence in the record of this proceeding of hydrocarbon transport,

significant

ozone

levels

occurring

throughout

the

state

and

violations of the standard continuing to occur in several areas.

(R.

 829-849.)

 Also see the Record and Opinion of the Board in

78—3,

1980

Annual

Air

Quality

Report;

and

Illinois

SIP,

Volume 5.)

 On 72 of 153 days during the 1980 ozone season,

at

least one Illinois city or area was placed on an ozone advisory.

Although several industrial representatives argued that recent

ozone levels indicate that statewide controls are unnecessary,

the evidence of changes in ozone levels over the 1979—80 periods

is not generally considered conclusive.

 Notably,

 in the R81-20

proceeding, industry representatives supported a “bubble” rule

which would allow emission sources at great distances

 (100—200

miles) to “bubbler’ VO~4emissions on the basis of the long—range

transport phenomena.

(R.

 578-579.)

 The 1980 Annual Air Q~

Report,

 published by the Illinois

 EPA, does document short—term

decreases in ozone levels;

 however,

 it also points out that the

summer meteorology in 1979 and 1980 was not as conducive to the

formation and transport of ozone as the previous years

 (1977,

1978).

 (Also see Econ,

 R. 272.)

Although some industrial

 representatives argue that

it

is

less efficient to control emissions in clean areas,

 this has not

been documented,

 In several RACT II categories,

it

 is more cost—

efficient on a dollars—per—ton basis for emission sources in

attainment areas to control emissions than it

 is for emission

sources in the same category in NAA.

 (See EcIS, Table

I,

 p. xii;

Table

 3.12, p.

66;

p.

 95.)

 It is notable that attainment areas

produce almost one—third of the VOM emissions and potential emis-

sion reductions in the state.

 Thus,

 attainment areas,

 as a whole,

are not insignificant VOM contributors,

 In fact, in many cases,

the largest VOM emitters are located in attainment areas.

The

argument that controls are not cost—beneficial

 in attainment areas

(R.552) overlooks the transport phenomena and its impact on sur-

rounding areas,

 In the absence of documentation as to the source

of hydrocarbons contributing to ozone problems, it is impossible

to determine the cost effectiveness of controls simply on the

basis of the lack of an ozone problem in the county in which the

emission source is located.

 The Board also notes proposed federal

amendments to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program suggest

 that it would be imprudent to rely on that program to insure

maintenance of a margin for growth.

47-20 1

6

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

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

located outside NAA if RACT is not applied statewide.

The

competitive disadvantage would be increased for businesses in

NAA’s

 in that various exemptions and extensions for industries

in RACT II categories would have to be eliminated to accomodate

for increased pollutant background

 levels.

 These Illinois indus-

tries would not only be at a competitive disadvantage within

Illinois but also vis—a—vis their counterparts elsewhere.

The Board also notes that the constant shifting of regu-

latory 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 will

not benefit from additional uncertainty.

III.

 Proposal to Exempt Particular Solvent

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.

 These two solvents can be a compliance alternative

for some surface coating operations.

There was significant debate in the record on the exemption

of these solvents.

 Participants and commentors generally agreed

that these solvents do not appreciably contribute to ozone

formation and are only negligibly photochernically reactive.

 Thus,

they are not to be regulated as ozone precursors.

 However, there

was disagreement as to other health effects and 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.)

After a careful review of the record created in this pro-

ceeding the Board finds that recent studies show that there is

insufficient evidence to justify regulating these solvents

for

possible health effects.

47-202

7

First,

 the Board notes that the OSHA standards,

 which

anticipate eight—hour workplace exposure to the solvents,

are

350 ppm for these solvents in contrast to 10 ppm for carbon

tetrachloride, a known human carcinogen.

It

 is also notable

that USEPA has declined to place these solvents on its Potential

Atmospheric ~jnoe~is

 list.

(R.

 720,)

 Following 29 tests6r

mutagenicity, the National Toxicology Program concluded that

1,1,1

—

 Trichloroethane was a non—carcinogen.

(R.

 721.)

 Similarly,

the Science Advisory Board found that there was no evidence to

suggest that either solvent may be carcinogenic,

(R.

 721.)

Another report prepared by BDM for the U.S.

 Army states that

chronic exposure studies suggest that these solvents are not

carcinogenic and cause no damage to vital organs when concen-

trations are maintained within recommended exposure limits.

(P.C.

22,

 Attachment,)

Although

 it is extremely difficult

 to conclusively prove

that a substance is absolutely safe,

 the Board must conclude in

light of this evidence that

these

 solvents have not been proven

to be more dangerous than many other unregulated substances.

The evidence on

damage

the

stratospheric

ozone

layer

caused

these solvents

also

inconclusive,

 Thus,

 finding that continued

regulation is not justified on any of these bases, the Board has

amended the definition of

 \TOM as proposed.

IV.

Rotogravure

and

Flexography

Rule

205(s)

A.

 General Technical and Economic Issues

In the “Graphic Arts

—

 Rotogravure

and

Flexography”

category,

emission reductions can be achieved either by 1)

 adding on a

carbon adsorption control

 system,

2)

 adding on an incineration

control system, or

 3) switching to low solvent

 inks.

 The pro-

posed rule provides

that

use

any

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

available do not meet all printing requirements.

 The USEPA CTG

for this category indicates that water borne inks are used exten-

sively 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,

tJSEPA

has

indicated

that

they

will

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

47-203

8

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

considered

RACT.

 At these volumes, emission reductions equivalent to those

expected

from

the

add—on

treatment

system

should

achieved.

USEPA

and

IEPA

also

recommend

 that

inks

which

contain

60

 or more

non-volatile

material

considered

RACT

order

encourage

development of high solids

 inks,

The CTG states that carbon adsorption and incineration

systems

 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

adsorber

incinerator,

varies

with

the

type

printing

operation.

Reported

combined

capture

and

reduction

efficiencies

for

publication

 rotogravure plants have been 75

or

more.

(CTG,

Ex.

9,

p.

 1—2.)

 Large packaging rotogravure presses are expected

to 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 approximately

considered

 achievable

 for these presses.

(CTG,

Ex,

1-2,

R.999,

1014—15,)

 Due to the construction of

flexographic

presses,

effective hooding and ducting Is difficult

construct.

There-

fore,

 a lower overall control

of

efficiency

 of 60

 is considered

RACT

for

 flexographic

presses.

(CTG,

Ex.

1—3.)

While

least

one

witness

argued

 that there was

basis

given

the

CTG

TSD

 for the 65

 reduction from packaging

rotogravure

presses

(See

Ex.

24;

 R. 1014),

 several other witnesses representing

the

Illinois

printing

 industry indicated that these

numbers

were

achievable.

 (See Ex.

24;

R.

 279—80,

 444—446,

 779,

780.)

Although the retro—fit systems are technologically available,

they

may

not

 economically reasonable

 in all cases,

The

cost

effectiveness

 both systems depends

the

amount

ink

used

the

source

 and the VOC concentration by volume in the emissions

gas

stream,

 For example, witnesses testified that both incinera-

tion and

carbon

 adsorption systems are expensive for

packaging

rotogravure

presses

which

are

characterized

short

runs,

dilute

levels of solvent,

and

 varied solvent mixtures.

 Carbon adsorption

systems are considered more cost effective for publication roto-

gravure

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

roto-

gravure press will have a negative annualized cost if a

plant

uses at least 7,720

tons

 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.)

47-204

USEPA recommends that plants using less than 100 TPY of ink

be exempt from RACT requirements.

(R.

 132, CTG,

Ex.

9,

 Fig.

 4—4,

4—5.)

This

exemption

based

the

drastic

reduction

cost

effectiveness per ton of emissions for plants using less than 100

TPY of ink.

 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 (EcIS)

 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 ECIS

compared company-provided cost estimates based on retrofitting.

However, the larger of the packaging rotogravure

 firms indicated

could

convert

low

solvent

inks

were

given

compliance

date extension beyond 1982.

 Although the EcIS does not provide

cost estimates for conversion to low solvent inks, the Agency’s

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.

 (EcIS,

44;

P.C.

18.)

The EcIS 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

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 requirements;

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.

 Specific Issues

Rule 205(m)(b)

 allows an extension of the compliance date up

to 1987 consistent with the conditions specified in the rule which

47-205

10

generally reflect the Rhoad’s Memo.

 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)

 utilized the control and

capture

efficiencies proposed by the Agency~

 As stated above, the pro-

posed 65

 capture efficiency for packaging rotogravure was ques-

tioned by one company, however,

 there is no indication in the

record

that

this

capture

efficiency

 not generally achievable

the

industry.

The

Board

notes

that

the

capture

requirement

established

 consideration of

the

fact

that

capture

 effi-

ciency is lower

for

packaging

rotogravure

than

for

publication

rotogravure.

 Any special hardship which may

experienced

individual

company

 may he the appropriate subject of

individual

variance

from

 this rule.

Rule 205(s)(2)

utilizes

the

1000

TPY

 exemption

proposed

the

Agency.

This

exemption

justif

led

the

fact

that

Illinois

this

industry

 characterized by

large

plants.which

make

the

bulk

(95,9)

 of the available emission

reductions.

(R.

1000—1005.)

Regulation

smaller

businesses

for

which

the

purchase

 retrofit equipment or the experimentation

with

low

solvent

inks

 is far less cost efficient is not justified

this

time.

The

Board

 notes that

the

 Agency proposal used

the

term

“facility,”

but

did

 not define this term.

The

Board

proposal

uses

the

term

 “press~’to achieve consistency.

 However, the Board

proposal

 is intended to reflect the same exemption levels which

were proposed by the Agency.

The

 Board specifically

solicits

comment

and

 definitional proposals on this point.

Given

the

1000

 TPY exemption,

 there

 is no

need

for

special

exemption for “proof presses”

 was suggested by the trade asso-

ciations.

 The argument for the proof press exemption

was

based

on the fact that proof presses are very small emission sources.

 The Board also declines to create a new definition of “printing

press” as proposed by the trade associations due to the lack of

a sufficient discussion of the impact of such a definition in

the

record.

Several

witnesses

expressed

interest

utilizing

“bubble”

approach to achieve emission reductions

equivalent

those

achievable

utilizing

the

specific

technology

prescribed

this

rule.

 The Board notes that the provisions

the

recently

adopted

Chapter

Part

212,

Alternative

Control

Strategy

rules

will

allow

an owner or

operator

press

subject

this

rule

demonstrate

the equivalency of an alternative approach.

47-206

Leaks

 from Petroleum Refinery Equipment

—

 Rule 205(e)

7\.

General

Technical

and

Economic_Issues

the

 “Leaks from

Petroleum

Refinery

Equipment”

category,

 it is recognized that an inspection and maintenance program can

reduce

 VOM emissions and save petroleum.

 The emission reduction

expected

from

aoplication

 of the Agency proposal was approximately

31,000

TPY.

This

the

 largest single category of emission reduc-

tions addressed by the

RACT

regulations,

well

the

most

cost

efficient to control.

 The Economic Impact Study found that the

estimated savings of crude oil to refineries

 in Illinois more than

offset the cost of the inspection and maintenance program proposed

by these regulations.

 t~hilethe Agency and the EelS used a 90.2

control efficiency in calculating reductions expected from inspec-

tion 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,

The issue in

this

 category is not whether inspection and

maintenance is

RACT,

because,

for

the

 category as a whole,

it

is clearly available and

economically

 reasonable.

 The issue

what

frequencies

and

m~thods o~ insoection

and

maintenance

are

most

 cost efficient.

~e

 Illinois Petroleum

Council

(IPC)

presented a

lengthy

analysis

the

proposed

rule

focusing

the cost

effectiveness

monitoring

particular

types

com-

ponents

particuLar

toes

service

(gaseous,

).iquid,

and

heavy liquid).

Cost effectiveness does vary component by component.

For

example,

 a model refinery is oresumeci to have 100,000 leaks.

75

 of these leaks are orosumed

 be attributable to pipeline

valves, while only 5

are

 attributable to pump seals.

 However,

the Petroleum

Council

testified

that

the

maintenance

coSLs

are

associated

 with monitoring oump seals,

 Among other things,

the

Petroleum

Council

nro~osod

exemption

for

components

heavy liquid service, an oxeniotion for

pump

seals

and

flanges,

 an exemption for gas streams conta~n1ngless than 30

 VOM, moni-

toring only during the osone

season,

deletion

the

reporting

requirements, and a

reduction

the

monitoring

periods.

(See

621—535.)

Specific

Issues

The

Board

rule

reflects

number

the

concerns

expressed

the

IPC,

yet

retains

the

bulk

 of the emission reductions pre-

dicted to

available

from

this

 category during the ozone

 season.

addition,

the

rule

has

been

 somewhat

reorganized

 to more

clearly

identify

the

actions

 that are required of owners and

operators.

47-207

First,

the

definition

 of “component” in Rule 201 specifies

particular

components

but

also

 retains the phrase

 “but not limited

to”

order

insure

 that any leaking piece of equipment will

be monitored,

 reported, and repaired.

 The language has been

amended,

however,

specifically

exclude

all

“equipment”

“heavy liquid service.”

 The rationale

for

excluding

valves

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 record, 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 he 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

indicated

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°?.

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, the specific tagging requirements which were

proposed have been replaced with the more flexible requirement

that

the

plan

include

description

the

method

used

mark

various components,

The monitoring program

 (Rule 205(l)(6))

 requires monitoring

only twice a year, before and during the ozone season.

The

limitation to the ozone season is justified by the fact that

outdoor inspection and maintenance of this equipment is parti-

cularly 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.

 The annual testing of com-

ponents must be completed and reports filed prior to May 1st of

 each year.

 Although the rule allows flexibility with regard to

when the monitoring is

 actually performed,

 it is anticipated that

the monitoring would take place within two or three months preced-

ing May 1st.

 Testing must be performed again and reports filed

again prior to August 1st of each year for certain specified

components.

47-208

The proposed

Agency

authority

require

early

turn—around

of leaking components has been deleted.

 The Board questions both

the legality and the policy implications of such an authorization.

However,

 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 proposed Agency authority to generally modify the

requirements in the Board rules has been deleted because this

delegates rulemaking authority to the Agency without proper

standards.

 Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that experience

gained

carrying

out

the

monitoring

program

should

enable

owners and operators to distinguish more and less frequent

leakers.

 Thus,

it

desirable

have

 flexibility in the rules

to adapt the monitoring,

 recordkeeping 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 thousands of small

 refinery

leaks.

 The “equivalency” demonstration required by this special-

ized 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 parti-

cular hardship involved in monitoring these units was given in

 the record.

Rule 205(m) (4) requires that the monitoring program plan

be submitted to the Agency within six months after the effective

date of this regulation and that the first annual monitoring

report be submitted prior to May 1,

 1982.

 It is anticipated

that this time—frame will enable refineries to put together a

plan,

perform

the

first

monitoring

program,

and

report

the

Agency prior to the beginning of

the

1983

ozone

season

but

later than May 1,

 1983.

On a related issue, the Agency proposal amended the

definition of VOM to eliminate the specialized definition of VOM

adopted for Rule (l)(1-3)

 in the RACT

 I proceeding.

 Nothing in

the Statement of Reasons or the record explains the purpose of

this amendment,

 therefore,

 the 1.5 psia

definition

applicable

those RACT

 I categories has been retained.

47-209

VI.

 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Parts

General

Technical

and

Economic

Issues

This

CTG

category

must comply with the

 colt: ~iltr

 ‘e date

in.

Rule 205(j), that

is,

December 31,

 1983,

 response to testi!

 iy or

the

 a’k on availability in the

foreseeable future of corr1naice

 oat nus for either “the exterior

of marine vessels” or “mar~neoropulsion equipment,” these parti-

cular

surface

 coating operatior~arc exempted from the definition

Miscellaneous

 Metal

 ~ar~e a~dLr

 Ir ts

 in Rule 201.

 Although

the

Agency

testified

 than further d Lnnition of the term

“exterior

of marine veseel” ~ulc

‘~

~b

 approaci, no such

defini-

tion was proposed

 ‘the e~p~n

 reference to propulsion equipment

is added to minimize the anbiguity on this term.

The Board also notes thrt t~eexemption of the 1,1,1 tn—

chloroethane and methyene stir

ide

 rll reduce tne economic

impact

 of the pro:oscd rejuTL

 ~r industries in this category.

VII.

Petroleum

 Liquid Storase

 External Floating Roof

Tanks

 General Technica~. nd

 ononic Issues

Existing Rule 205 a)(2

rcqurr~spetroleum storage tanks

 Illinois equipped with tioatLi

 roofs to use a “primary seal”

around

the

rim

 to close the space between the roof edge and tank

wall.

The

 Agency prorosal ~cr n~men~ed

retrofitting

these

roofs

with

 additional

 ssc~~rdar

~

‘

 to rei ice wind—induced

evaporation as

 IIACT.

 For tann~~

 s ntaining gasoline,

secondary

seals have been shown to provide a 97,8

 control efficiency.

An IPC survey identified 362 tanks

 ~hichwould require retro-

fitting under this rule

(H.

 60’,

 Also see

Ex.

 26,)

 The total

uncontrolled emissions from thi3 sategory are 17,300

 TPY,

The

Agency predicted their

 rooo

e

‘

 uli ~cdice emissions by 77.

Existing Rule 205(o)(3) generally prescribes requirements

applicable to all petroleum storage tanks,

 The Agency proposal,

 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

secondary

seal,

 “gap”

 limitations, md semi—annual inspections.

New

Rule

205(a)(3)(D)

 pn’ovi(es 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,

17

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,

R.

 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 point” of 10°F,

 a paraffin content test,

and

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

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 accu9lated

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

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.

(R.

 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

million

gallons

 gasoline annually which

would totally off—set all costs associated with the A~encypro-

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

47-213

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.

The costs associated with crude oil tanks must be reduced by

the number of tanks which will not be required to retrofit due to

the heavy, waxy pour crude oil exemption~ For example, utilizing

the industry proposed definition of heavy,

 waxy pour crude,

Marathon Oil Company testified it

 will

 be required to retrofit

only 3 of its

 44 crude oil tanks

 Illinois.

 Under the Agency

definition,

 27 crude tanks would require retrofitting.

Specific

Issues

The Board rule largely incorporates the definition of “Waxy,

 Heavy Pour Crude Oil” proposed by the IPC.

 This broader defini-

tion is supported both by the technical problems associated with

deposition from these crudes and the lower cost effectiveness and

control efficiency of secondary seals on crude

 tanks.

 The rule,

however, utilizes

the

50° F

pour

point

proposed

the

Agency

rather than the 10°pour point.

 Without additional documentation

on deposition at various pour points, the Board declines to alter

the Agency proposal on this point.

The Board rule adopts the2Agency’s proposed 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

 determined by the Agency pursuant to Rule

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

VIII.

 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

A.

 General Technical and Economic 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

47-214

the

fact

that

 it is economical to capture and

re—use

the

solvent.

The

capital

cost

for

this

system

“model”

commercial

plant

estimated

 approximately $5,500

$1,400

annually.

Estimated

solvent

recovery

valued

 $2,100 annually would

create

$700

 annual gain.

 Comparable,

 though larger,

figures

are

estimated

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.

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

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.

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” on

recycled solvent is smaller and the initial capital expenditure

is more burdensome.

Among other things,

 the Fabricare

Association

recommended

exemption

 for small dry cleaners using

 less

than

gallons

per

month

and

that

alternatives

 to the IEPA

proposal

made

available

for

the

draining

and

drying

filtration

cartridges.

~~4~4c

Issues

Given

the

small

amount

emissions

produced

each

plant

and

the

difficulty

enforcing

regulations

with

regard

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,

 While these small operations are exempt from

the carbon adsorption requirement and the permit requirements,

they must comply with the work practice requirements.

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.

47-215

IX,

Pneumatic

Rubber

Tires

A.

 General

Technical

and

Economic

Issues

Four manufacturing

processes

are

addressed

this

category:

undertread cementing,

 tread end cementing,

 bead

dipping,

and

green

tire

spraying.

 Carbon adsorption or

incineration

retrofitting

technically available for all four processes.

A

capture

system

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

the

CTG

apparently

not used

 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

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

the

 record that manual

tread—end

cementing

should

considered

 equivalent to RACT.

Water—based coatings are considered

most

economical

for

green tire spraying.

 Two 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

 see a “net” per tire emission

limitation

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

the

single

carbon

 adsorption

unit

operation

the

country.

They

argue

that

even

 the model used did not achieve the

CTG

efficiency

levels

and

that

Illinois

plants

can

expected

achieve

even

less

due

shorter

residence

times.

(P.C.

11,

3.)

47-216

B.

 Specific Issues

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 Rup

to,

but

 not including

 20 inch tires as the appropriate cut—off

point.

lb

clarify

this,

the

definition

Pneumatic

Rubber

Tire

Manufacture

has been

modified

 to exclude 20 inch tires.

New Rule 205(t)(3)

has

been

 added to allow the use of dif-

ferent approaches to

any

 of the regulated processes which can

be demonstrated to be equivalent on the basis of

VOM

emitted.

This

will

mean

that

 manual tread-end cementing and

the

existing

Illinois bead—dipping process will meet

RACT

requirements.

The

Board declines to create a specialized

 Rbubble

 rule for this

category.

However,

Rgr~s..per..tireu proposal

covering

multiple

processes

would

allowed

under

the

Board’s

recently

adopted

Alternative

Control

Strategy

rules.

Synthesized

Pharmaceuticals

General

Technical

and

Economic

Issues

Emission reductions available by application of

RACT

the synthesized pharmaceuticals category represent one—half of

one

 percent of the

 total

emission

reductions

believed

available

Illinois,

300

Tfl.

 (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, and

 dryers

have

the

potential

emit

greater

than

pounds

per

day.

IEPA

has

proposed

exempt

sources

with

the

potential

emit

less

than

pounds

per

day.

Retrofitting

the

remaining

sources

with

condensers,

scrubbers,

 carbon

adsorbers

is considered

RACT

USEPA.

(Ex.

6.)

While

tschnically

feasible

achieve

90

 reduction

emissions

from

these

point

sources

by retrofitting,

it

not

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.

 Specific Issues

The

Board

finds

 that

application

the

recommended

retrofit

technology is

not

 economically reasonable for Illinois plants in

this category due to the insignificant level of emissions which

would

captured

and

the

expense

the

equipment

involved.

47-217

22

XI,

 Compliance Dates

Many of the

compliance

dates

 originally proposed by the

Agency have

become

outdated

the

 course of this rulemaking.

Rule 205(j)

 adopts December 31,

1983

 as the final compliance date

for

Rule

 205(n)(1)(J),

 (K) and

 (L), Rule 205(o)(3),

 Rule 205(s),

Rule 205(t),

 and Rule 205(u)(1)(A)—(C).

 This deadline is designed

to provide suff:~ienttime 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

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

commitments

are

met,

The

do~dline

for

 implementation of dry cleaner work practices

meeting the requirements of Rule 205(u) (1) (D)—(G)

 is December 31,

1982.

 This should allow several months for planning

 as well

as

purchasing and hiring if these are found to be necessary.

The deadlines for submittal of compliance plans

 for emission

sources subject to Rule 104(h) are adopted as proposed by the

Agency.

Since

these

dates

are

based

certain

time

period

after

promulgation

the

rule,

changes

 were not necessary.

Rule 104(a), addressing the

requirement

 compliance plan

for

emission

sources

not

compliance,

has

 been reworded to

improve

clarity.

should

noted

that

compliance

plan

submittal

dates

for

 the low solvent development programs listed

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 for emis-

sion sources utilizing the low-solvent ink programs, retrofit

technology must he implemented.

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

Board Member J. Dumelle concurred.

I,

 Christan L,

 Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, h~r~ycertify that the above Proposed Opinion was

adopted on the ~

 day of

 1982 by a vote of’~~,

Christan

Hoffet

,‘

lerk

Illinois

Pollution

ontrol

Board

47-~218