F
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
CLEAN-UP PART III
)
AMENDMENTS TO
35 ILL.
)
ADM. CODE PARTS 211,218 AND 219
)
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State ofIllinois Center
100 West Randolph,
Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Katherine
D. Hodge
Executive Director
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield,
IL 62703
)
NOTICE
JAN
$
2004
RO4-~
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
POIiW1Ol~~ONT~OL
HOARD
Matthew Dunn, Chief
Attorney General’s Office
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph,
12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Jonathan Fun
ChiefLegal Counsel
Illinois Dept. ofNatural Resources
524 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois
62701-1787
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I havetoday filed with the Office ofthe Pollution
Control Board the REGULATORY PROPOSAL FOR CLEAN-UP PART III
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PARTS 211,218 AND 219 and
APPEARANCE ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy ofwhich is
herewith served upon you.
DATED:
January
5,
2004
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By:
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CF~VFM
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
JAN
62004
)
CLEAN-UP PART III
)
R04-
~I~j
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ADM. CODE PARTS 211, 218
AND
219
)
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF REGULATORY SUBMITTAL
Following is a Table of Contents of all pleadings and documents included with the
proposed regulatory action:
1.
Notice ofProposal
2.
Appearance ofCharles E. Matoesian, Assistant Counsel, for.the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
3.
Director Renee Cipriano’s Proposal of Amendments
4.
Statement ofReasons
5.
Proposed Amendments to
35 Iii. Adm. Code Part 211:
The original and nine (9) copies
6.
Proposed Amendments to 35 Iii.
Adm. Code Part 218:
The original and nine (9) copies
7.
Proposed Amendments to 35 Iii. Adm.
Code Part 219:
The original and nine (9) copies
8.
Materials Incorporated by Reference
a.
40 CFR
51,
Appendix M (62 FR 32500)
b.
“Guidelines forDetermining Capture Efficiency”
c.
“Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions,” Memorandum by
John
S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and
Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
February,
1995.
9.
Proofof Service
10.
Disk in Microsoft Word containing:
a.
Proposed Amendments to 35 Iii. Adm. Code
Part 211
b.
Proposed Amendments to 35
Ill. Adm. Code Part 218
c.
Proposed Amendments to
35 Ill.
Adm. Code Part 219
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Cl~r~
)
)
RO4-’1-~
JAN
62004
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
POWJT
~
IN THE MATTER OF:
CLEAN-UP PART III
AMENDMENTS TO
35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE PARTS 211, 218
AND
219
)
)
APPEARANCE
The undersigned, as one of its attorneys, hereby enters an Appearance on behalf
ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By:
_____________
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
DATED:
January
5,
2004
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
)
RO~
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
JAN
~6
2004
~W
POflifioN
CONTROL
BOARD
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSAL OF
AMENDMENTS
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(Agency),
pursuant
to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
102.202,
moves
that the Board accept for hearing the
Agency’s
proposal for amendment of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Parts 211, 218 and
219.
This
regulatory
proposal
includes:
1) the proposed amendments; 2) the Statement ofReasons;
3) a
statement regarding an economic impact study;
and 4) an Appearance for the attorney
representing the Illinois EPA.
DATED:
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-3397
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF:
CLEAN-UP PART III
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.
ADM. CODE PARTS 211,
218 AND 219
)
)
Director
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~CFJV~fl
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
JAN
$
2004
)
CLEAN-UP PART III
)
R04-
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.
)
(Rulemaking -Air)
POIW11OI+i
CONTROL ~OARh
ADM. CODE PARTS 211, 218
AND
219
)
)
STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) hereby
submits this
Statement ofReasons to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) pursuant to
Sections
27 and 28 ofthe Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”)(415
ILCS
5/27 and 28)
and
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 102.202(b), in support ofthe attached proposed amendments.
Included in this proposal are amendments to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Parts 211, 218 and 219
(respectively, “Part 211,” “Part 218” and
“Part 219”).
In addition to the Authoritynote,
the Subparts of Part 218 and Part 219 to which amendments are proposed are: Subpart A,
General Provisions; Subpart F, Coating
Operations; Subpart H, Printing and Publishing;
Subpart Z, Dry Cleaners; Subpart HH, Motor Vehicle Refinishing; and Appendix B.
This
proposal amends the most recent version ofParts 211, 218 and 219 as found on the
Board’s website.’
I.
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSAL
These proposed amendments are simply a “clean-up” ofexisting regulations which result
from discussions with the USEPA
and industry and which will reduce the burden of
complying with certainprovisions and increase the flexibility for complying with certain
otherprovisions.
Originally, the Subparts at issue were adopted to satisfy Clean Air Act
(“CAA”) requirements.
Section
182(b)(1) ofthe CAA, 42 USC Section 7511a(b)(l)
required all moderate, serious, severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas to
achieve a
15
reduction in volatile organic material (“VOM”) by 1996.
In Illinois, the Chicago
area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area.
The Metro-East St. Louis
(“Metro-East”) area was, until recently, classified as a moderate
ozone nonattainment
area.
Illinois was thus charged with developing a plan to reduce VOM emissions in the
Chicago and Metro-East areas by
15.
Illinois identified various measures to reduce VOM emissions and submitted same as a
15
Rate ofProgress Plan
(“15
ROP”).
The ROP was adopted in rulemakings R94-12,
R94-15, R94-16, R94-21, R94-19, R94-20, R94-3l, R94-32 and R94-33.
Many ofthe
‘The Board inadvertently omitted Appendix B of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
Part
218
from its website.
However,
Appendix B has not previously been repealed
and
is presented as an element ofPart 218 in this rulemaking.
provisions in this rulemaking were developed or amended to accomplish the
15
ROP
Plan.
The amendments generally clarify existing regulatory provisions with the goals of
reducing the burdens of, and affording greater flexibility in, demonstrating compliance.
The amendments are emissions neutral, and do not impact the overall plans or goals of
the Chicago nonattainment area or Metro-East ozone area.
The Illinois EPA proposes the
following amendments: updating the test methods for capture efficiency (CE); clarifying
the term “carbon adsorber”; clarifying the applicable requirements for screen printers;
clarifying the description ofcertain categories ofsealers and topcoats; clarifying the
monitoring requirements, applicability, equations, and recordkeeping and reporting for
lithographic printing operations; and
clarifying that sources may turn offtheir natural
gas
fired afterburners outside the ozone season; deleting the requirements applicable to
perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities;
deleting the requirement that auto finishing
shops
annually re-register with Illinois EPA and deleting the coating purchasing
recordkeeping requirements; and, correcting miscellaneous grammatical and
typographical errors.
The Illinois EPA further proposes to add two definitions in Part
211
as necessary in light ofthe proposed amendments to Parts 218
and 219 and to amend
the Authority note.
The Illinois EPA technical staff has prepared a briefsynopsis ofthe testimony which
would be offered, if requested at a hearing.
Iftechnical questions in regards to the
proposed changes should occur at the Board hearing, Gary Beckstead, Illinois EPA Air
Quality Planning Engineer, will be available to respond.
The synopsis is below.
The changes proposed in this rulemaking are non-substantive corrections and
updates to the existing Illinois Administrative Code Parts 218 and 219 regulations
for the Chicago and Metro East areas.
In addition, several definitions were added
to Part 211
as a result of these changes.
Because the changes were not
substantive,
no technical support documents or written testimony are provided.
The proposed corrections and updates make the Illinois regulations more user
friendly, facilitate their use, and
clarify misinterpretations that have occurred in
the use ofthese regulation since their adoption.
Any impacts that might occur as
a result ofthe proposed changes will benefit the users without adverse economic
or environmental impacts.
Furthermore, as part ofthe outreach for this rulemaking, all the proposed changes
were reviewed by the constituents of the Illinois Environmental Resource Group
(IERG) and have been found acceptable. IERG is an environmental association
composed of a wide variety of industrial firms that are regulated by 35 Ill. Adm.
Code Parts 218 and 219.
2
a.
Capture Efficiency
CE test methods are required by the CAA and included in the Chicago Federal
Implementation Plan.
The measurement of CE is critical to
determining the effectiveness
ofvolatile organic compound (VOC) emission control systems.
On June
16,
1997,
USEPA published a final rule in the Federal Register updating the CE test methods
located at 40 CFR
51,
Appendix M (62 Fed. Reg.
32500 June
16,
1997).
Additionally,
on January 9,
1995, USEPA
issued a guidance document entitled “Guidelines for
Determining Capture Efficiency” that revised the existing USEPA approved gas/gas and
liquid/gas CE test methods and introduced two newalternative
CE test protocols.
This
was followed by a memorandum by John
S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality
Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency, in February,
1995 entitled “Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control ofVolatile Organic
Compound Emissions.”
USEPA developed the two alternative methods in order to
provide additional regulatory flexibility and reduce compliance costs.
The two
alternative methods are statistical approaches to determining CE and
are referred to as the
Data Quality Objective (DQO) and Lower Confidence Limit (LCL).
These methods
define sets ofapproval criteria which, when met by the data obtained from the
measurement of applicable process parameters using USEPA approved procedures and
protocols, may be used to determine VOC
capture system compliance witha regulatory
CE standard.
The proposal amends
Sections 218.105(c),
219.105(c),
218.112
and 219.112 to reflect the
use of USEPA revised CE testing methods which will be incorporated by reference (and
Appendix B will be deleted).
Also, the proposal adds the option for sources to use
USEPA approved alternative CE test methods, also to be incorporated by reference.
Additionally, the proposal clarifies that the alternative CE test methods are considered
equivalent alternative test methods pursuant to Sections 218.108(b) and 219.108(b).
The
CE amendments provide for a mass balance approach to determining CE compliance
using the DQO/LCL methodology and provisions for simultaneous testing ofmultiple
lines or emission units sharing a common control device.
Further, the proposal will
include the correct terminology and symbols regarding the mass ofVOM that escapes
from a total temporary enclosure or a building
enclosure.
The correct terminology
“uncaptured” VOM, will replace the existing terminology “fugitive” VOM in Section
218.105(c)(2)(A),
(B), (C) and (D) and Section
219.105(c)(2)(A),
(B), (C) and (D).
Lastly, the proposal amends the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to include
advance notification ofCE testing in the new Sections 218.105(c)(4) and
219.105(c)(4).
b.
Carbon Adsorbers and Control Device Monitoring
The carbon adsorbers provision is based upon a federally issued Control Technique
Guidelines (CTG) document.
This proposal was added to the clean-up agenda in
response to concerns from industry over the limiting nature ofthe term “carbon” in
“carbon adsorbers”, and to reflect the changing technology in the field of adsorbers and
the media used in them, such as aluminum and silicon oxides.
The proposal clarifies that
the term “carbon adsorber” as used in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.105(d) and 2 19.105(d)
3
/
refers to adsorbers in general
not just those using activated carbon as the adsorbent.
The
proposal does so by way ofa new definition at Section 211.953.
Finally, the proposal
requires a continuous recorder on temperature monitoring devices in Sections
218.1
05(d)(2)(B)
and 219.1
05(d)(2)(B).
c.
Screen Printers
In~response
to
questions from industry, the Illinois EPA proposes to clarify in Sections
218.204(c) and
2 19.204(c) that screen printing on paper falls under Subpart TT, Other
Emission Units, rather than the paper coating regulations in Subpart F.
The current
Board note forpaper coating exempts printing operations if they fall under Sections
2 18.401
and 219.401
ofSubpart H,
Printing and Publishing.
However, screen printing
activities do not fall under Subpart H but rather are regulated under Subpart TT, which is
a generic catch-all regulation.
In addition to modifying the Board note, the Illinois
EPA
proposes adding the definition of “screen printing on paper” to Part 211
at Section
211.5880.
d.
Wood Furniture
The wood furniture rule is based upon a CTG.
In response to questions from industry,
the Illinois
EPA proposes clarifying the descriptions for “topcoats” and “sealers” used in
the coating ofwood furniture.
Currently, in the regulations at Sections 218.204(1)(2)(B)
and 219.204(l)(2)(B), the categories of sealers and topcoats are divided into “acid-cured
alkyd amino” and
“non-acid-cured alkyd amino.”
The Illinois EPA is proposing to alter
the wording to be more unambiguous than the existing descriptions.
e.
Lithographic Printing
This proposal corrects the heatset web offset lithographic printing VOM maximum
theoretical emissions (“MTE”) equation in Sections 218.406(b)(1)(A)(ii) and
219.406(b)(1)(A)(ii).
Discussions with the USEPA resulted in an agreement that the
Illinois EPA would undertake this modification.
The Illinois EPA also proposes to
correct the required accuracy of fountain solution temperature monitors for refrigerated
fountain solutions in
Sections 218.410(a)(2) and 219.410(a)(2) from “0.3°Cor
0.5°F”
to
“1°Cor 2°F”since there is not currently readily-available equipment on the market to
meet the more stringent limits.
The proposal will also clarify the recordkeeping and
reporting language in Sections 218.41 1(a)(1)(B)(iii) and 219.41 1(a)(1)(B)(iii).
Additionally, the proposal will correct typographical errors in Sections 219.410 and
219.411
to reflect the correct Part number in Sections 219.410(b) and 219.410(b)(l)(A)
and Section 219.41 1(a)(2)(B)(vi).
The proposal will add the word “lithographic” to
printing lines in Sections 218.41 1(a)(1)(B)(i) and 219.41 1(a)(l)(B)(i) to clarify that only
lithographic printing lines should be
counted in determining the number of days of
operation.
This proposal also changes the word “or” to
“and” in Sections 218.411(d)(1)
and 219.41 1(d)(1) to clarify that sourcesmust have submitted a certification by March
4
15,
1996, and upon startup ofany new lines after that.
The proposal
also clarifies that
when using an impervious substrate, such as plastic or metals,
no retention factor is used
for inks in determining emissions for applicability purposes.
(Sections
218.411 (a)(1 )(B)(iii) and 219.411 (a)(l)(B)(iii)).
The Illinois EPA proposes adding recordkeeping and reporting requirements for fountain
solutions
where the VOM is added with automatic feed equipment, as this was
inadvertently left out ofprior lithographic printing rulemakings.
These occur in Sections
218.410(b)(2) and 219.410(b)(2), and in new Sections 218.41 1(c)(2)(D) and
219.411 (c)(2)(D).
In addition, the Illinois EPA is proposing at Sections 218 .407(a)( 1)(E)
and 219.407(a)(1)(E) to
clarify that sources may turn offtheir natural gas fired
afterburners outside the ozone season consistent with Sections 218.107 and 219.107.
f.
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners
The USEPA exempted perchioroethylene from the definition ofa VOM (61 Fed. Reg.
4588 (February 7,
1996)) because it was determined that perchloroethylene had
negligible photochemical reactivity.
Pursuant to Section 9.1(e) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1(e), the Board is mandated to exempt from the definition ofVOM those compounds
that USEPA determines to be exempt from regulation.
The Board adopted a fmal rule in
R96-16 (21
Ill. Reg. 2461
(February 6,
1997)) delisting perchioroethylene as a VOM.
The Illinois
EPA now proposes to repeal Sections 218.601, 218.602, 218.603 and
219.601, 219.602 and 219.603 which regulate the use of VOM at perchloroethylene dry
cleaning facilities.
The exemption ofperchloroethylene from the definition of VOM will
not affect any efforts by the Illinois EPA to achieve the national ambient air quality
standards
(NAAQS) .in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area as the Illinois EPA’s
1990
baseline inventory for VOM emissions was corrected in 1993 to reflect the anticipated
delisting ofperchloroethylene.
In addition, perchioroethylene continues to be regulated
as a hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C.
§
7412.
Pursuant
to CAA Section
112(d), USEPA issued a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for perchloroethylene dry cleaners in 58 Fed. Reg. 49354
(September 22,
1993).
The Illinois EPA is delegated authority to implement this
perchloroethylene NESHAP, and thus to regulate perchloroethylene as a hazardous air
pollutant.
g.
Motor Vehicle Refinishing
The motor vehicle refinishingproposal containstwo amendments.
First, Illinois EPA
seeks to strike the requirement in
Sections 218.792 and 219.792 that all shops must
annually re-register with the Illinois EPA.
The Illinois EPA has determined that the
requirement serves no useful purpose and provides an unnecessary burden on regulated
sources and on the Illinois EPA.
Secondly,
and due to the implementation ofa national rule that limits the VOM content
ofcoatings being manufactured, the Illinois EPA proposes to eliminate certain
recordkeeping requirements.
The national rule limits the VOM content of coatings being
5
produced to the precise level the Illinois EPA limits the VOM content of coatings being
used.
Therefore, the only coatings that should be available for purchase and for resale•
should necessarily comply with the Illinois coating usage limits.
As such, it is proposed
that the requirement in Sections
218.790 and 2 19.790 for tracking coating purchases be
repealed.
The USEPA has approved rule revisions striking these recordkeeping
requirements in other states.
h.
.;
Miscellaneous
In addition to the above
amendments, the rule corrects numerous typographical-errors,
grammatical mistakes, and other minor inconsistencies.
These changes should have no
quantifiable effect on sources.
The miscellaneous changes occur throughout the Sections
mentioned above plus Sections 218.405 and 2 19.405.
In addition, in Sections
218.112(d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) the citation
to the Code ofFederal Regulations was
amended to add the number “40” to the citation.
II.
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS AND SOURCES AFFECTED
The geographic
areas affected by this proposal are the Chicago ozone non-attainment
area and the Metro-East ozone area as described in 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 218.103 and
219.103, respectively.
The sources potentially affected by the proposal are those subject
to the various subparts to which the Illinois EPA proposes amendments.
Again, however,
any impact to a source will be beneficial.
III.
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is aminor clean-up ofthe rules at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 218, 219 and
necessarily the definitions at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 211.
It is intended to have no real impact
upon sources except in that it reduces
compliance burdens, clarifies terms and
procedures, and reduces recordkeeping requirements.
IV.
TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY
AND
ECONOMIC
REASONABLENESS
The amendments to
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 218, 219 and 211 do not impose new
requirements.
The Illinois EPA therefore believes that an analysis oftechnical feasibility
and economic reasonableness is not appropriate.
V.
COMMUNICATION
WITH INTERESTED
PARTIES
These amendments are being proposed after discussions with USEPA and with the
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.
These amendments are in response to
concerns raised by USEPA and certain affected facilities,
as well as Illinois EPA.
6
VI. CONCLUSION
The Illinois EPA’s proposal is
a minor clean-up ofthe rules at 35
Ill. Adm. Code Parts
218 and 219 and the definitions at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code Part 211.
The
intent
is
to reduce
recordkeeping requirements, clarify terms and provide greater flexibility in achieving
compliance with the regulations, as well as to
address minor typographical and
gi~ammaticalerrors.
WHEREFORE,
for the reasons stated above, the Illinois EPA hereby submits this
regulatory proposal and requests the Board adopt these proposed rules for the State of
Illinois.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Byf~~
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED:
January
5,
2004
1021 North Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
‘7
Due
to
the
volume
of
this
pleading,
Back to top
please
contact
the
Clerk’s
Office
at
312/814—3629
to
view
this
file.