Unocal

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 18, 2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF FORMEL INDUSTRIES,

INC. FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

FROM 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 218.401(a),

(b), and (c)

)

AS 00-13

(Adjusted Standard – Air)

SUSAN W. HORN OF JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER; and

BONNIE SAWYER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. McFawn):

This matter comes before the Board on a petition for an adjusted standard filed on

March 14, 2000, by Formel Industries, Inc. (Formel) for its printing facility located in

Franklin Park, Cook County, Illinois (facility). In the petition, Formel requests that the Board

grant Formel an adjusted standard for three central-impression flexographic printing presses

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401(a), (b), and (c) (the “flexographic printing rule”). In

pertinent part, Section 218.401 requires that (1) the flexographic printer use water-based,

compliant inks that either contain no more than 40% volatile organic material (VOM) by

volume or contain no more than 25% VOM by volume of the volatile content of the ink, or

alternatively, (2) the printer operates a capture system and control device which reduces the

captured VOM emissions by 90% and the printing line is equipped to capture and control

device which provides an overall reduction in VOM emissions of at least 60%. 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 218.401.

Formel seeks an adjusted standard because it has found that it cannot use the water-

based compliant inks and because the cost of installing and using an approved control device

outweighs the benefit. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its

response on October 17, 2000, in which it recommended that the Board grant the adjusted

standard subject to certain conditions.

The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5.1

et seq

. (1998)). The Board is charged to “determine,

define and implement the environmental control standards applicable in the State of Illinois”

(415 ILCS 5/5(b) (1998)) and to “grant . . . an adjusted standard for persons who can justify

1 The petition for adjusted standard will be cited as “Pet. at __.” The Agency response will be

cited as “Resp. at __.” The hearing transcript will be cited as “Tr. at __.”. The Exhibits will

be cited as “Exh. __.”

such an adjustment” (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)).

A hearing in this matter was held on November 14, 2000, before Board Hearing

Officer John Knittle. The parties waived posthearing briefs and no public comments were

received. The Board has expedited its decision in response to Formel’s motion for expedited

ruling that was filed on November 30, 2000. The Board finds that Formel has satisfied the

requirements for an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401(a), (b), and (c), and

accordingly grants the adjusted standard with the conditions advocated by the Agency.

REGULATORY HISTORY

Formel seeks an adjusted standard from the Section 218.401, a rule that applies to

sources with the potential to emit (PTE) 25 TPY or more of VOM. The original reasonably

available control technology (RACT) regulations applied to major sources with actual VOM

emissions in excess of 100 TPY. Subsequent to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42

USC 7401

et seq

.), specifically Section 182(d) requires individual states with severe ozone

nonattainment areas to include all sources with the PTE at least 25 TPY as major sources and

adopt RACT regulations applicable to those sources. As a result, the Board adopted a rule that

reduced the applicability threshold from 100 TPY to sources with a PTE of 25 TPY or more.

See Omnibus Cleanup of the Volatile Organic Material RACT Rules Applicable to Ozone

Nonattainment Areas: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203, 211, 218 and 219

(September 9, 1993), R93-9. The RACT control requirements remained unchanged. Formel

is permitted to emit more than 25 TPY and finds that it cannot comply with those control

requirements.

Specifically, Formel seeks an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401(a),

(b), and (c), which provides in pertinent part:

a) No owner or operator of a subject flexographic . . . printing line shall

apply at any time any coating or ink unless the VOM content does not

exceed the limitation specified in either subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) below.

Compliance with this Section must be demonstrated through the

applicable coating or ink analysis test methods and procedures specified

in Section 218.105(a) of this Part and the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements specified in Section 218.404(c) of this Part. As an

alternative to compliance with this subsection, a subject printing line may

meet the requirements of subsection (b) or (c) below.

1) Forty percent VOM by volume of the coating and ink (minus

water and any compounds which are specifically exempted from

the definition of VOM), or

2) Twenty-five percent VOM by volume of the volatile content in

the coating and ink.

b) No owner or operator of a subject flexographic . . . printing line shall

apply coating or inks on the subject printing line unless the weighted

average, by volume, VOM content of all coatings and inks as applied

each day on the subject printing line does not exceed the limitation

specified in either subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(2) below.

Compliance with this subsection must be demonstrated through the

applicable coating or ink analysis test methods and procedures specified

in Section 218.105(a) of this Part and the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements specified in Section 218.404(d) of this Part.

* * *

c) No owner or operator of a subject flexographic *** printing line

equipped with a capture system and control device shall operate the

subject printing line unless the owner or operator meets the requirements

in subsection (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) and subsections (c)(4), (c)(5) and

(c)(6) below.

1) A carbon adsorption system is used which reduces the captured

VOM emissions by at least 90 percent by weight, or

2) An incineration system is used which reduces the captured VOM

emissions by at least 90 percent by weight, or

3) An alternative VOM emission reduction system is used which is

demonstrated to have at least a 90 percent control device

efficiency, approved by the Agency and approved by USEPA as a

SIP revision, and

4) The printing line is equipped with a capture system and control

device that provides an overall reduction in VOM emissions of at

least:

* * *

and

* * *

BACKGROUND

Formel operates a flexographic printing facility located in Franklin Park, Cook County,

Illinois. Pet. at 4. Formel employs 20-25 people and operates its presses in a 12,500 square

foot building. Formel is located in an industrial area, and there are no schools or residential

buildings in the area. Franklin Park is located in the Metropolitan Chicago Interstate Air

Quality Control Region (the “Chicago AQCR”) as defined by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA), an area which has been designed as severe ozone nonattainment

area. Pet at 6.

Formel uses three central-impression, flexographic printing presses to print images

using ink onto high-slip polypropylene, polyester, and cellophane film. Pet. at 5. After an

image is printed onto the film, the film is then used as a flexible package or wrapping for food

products for human consumption, such as pasta, candy, and snack food items.

. Formel

utilizes the high-slip material at the direction and specification of its customers. Pet. at 4.

Formel submitted representative samples of its products. Pet. at Exh. A.

Formel’s three presses are approximately 30-35 years old. Each press has five separate

color drying sections that operate immediately after the application of one of the six colors

involved with the image. In addition, each press has a final tunnel dryer. Heated air is

currently used to cure the ink (and set the image) at each stage. The three central-impression

presses each exhaust 4,700 scfm of air. Pet. at 4. In the flexographic, surface printing

process, ink is transferred from the ink pan to an “imaging roller” by an Anolox

roller. The

imaging roller then transfers the ink to the outside surface of the polypropylene, polyester or

cellophane substrate. Pet at 7.

Formel uses inks formulated with solids, pigments, and solvents, and which contain

approximately 60% solvent. Pet. at 4; 8. Solvents that also contain VOM are occasionally

added to the inks. Pet. at 4-5. Formel uses ethanol and ethyl acetate as dilution solvents. The

solvents also allow Formel to print on the high-slip film. Pet. at 5. The dilution solvents are

added to the inks to achieve the proper viscosity for rapid and economical printing, and to

produce the sharpest possible printed image. According to Formel, the use of water-based inks

would not have the same result. Pet. at 4; 8.

During the printing and curing processes, the solvents, by their volatile nature, quickly

flash off the film, thereby permanently setting the image without smearing or distortion. After

the flash off, the solvent gases are directed out of the plant through the roof. None of Formel’s

emissions are identified as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under Title III of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. Pet. at 8-9. Thereafter, the ink waste and solvent waste are

collected from the presses, placed in drums, and properly disposed of off-site by a licensed

disposal firm. Pet. at 9.

Formel describes its business as a small job-shop, meaning that it contracts for short-

term, smaller printing jobs. This requires Formel to set up and tear down its presses for each

job. Formel notes that it often switches between several, different jobs during the course of a

single day. Pet. at 4; Tr. at 18-20.

As previously explained, Formel’s printing process involves printing images on high-

slip film. Pet. at 6. Formel’s customers request the high-slip film because it is easier for them

to manipulate in their own processes. Pet. at 7. Formel’s customers also require the printed

images appear on the outside surface of the “high-slip” film. Pet. at 6. This method is

distinguishable from (1) reverse-image printing, where the printed image is on the inside of the

substrate, and (2) lamination, where the image is trapped between two surfaces. According to

Formel, printing on the outside of the substrate must be sturdier than with the other methods

because of friction, contact and other environmental conditions that may scratch, smear, or

otherwise adversely affect the image. Pet. at 7. Formel adds that the printed lines must be

crisp and sharp especially when printing images of food or images of the customers’ consumer

products, or when printing the operating or warning instructions for use of the product. Pet. at

Reverse printing is not a viable alternative because many of Formel’s customers use the

packaging material for food and other consumer goods, and they do not want the packaged

good to come into contact with the inks.

. Lamination is not a viable alternative since it

involves the use of two substrates (films), and the associated, additional costs make the use of

this technique cost prohibitive to Formel’s customers. Pet. at 8.

Formel currently has a Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit that allows it to

emit a maximum of 80 tons per year (TPY) of VOM. Resp. at 2.

2 Formel’s actual emissions

for 1996, 1997, and 1998, were 44.3 TPY, 61.276 TPY, and 67.299 TPY, respectively.

For 1994 and 1995, Formel averaged VOM emissions of 56.7 TPY. Pet. at 5.

According to the Agency, after filing its petition, Formel proposed to modify its

request. Formel proposed to the Agency that the adjusted standard limit it to applying inks

that contain 82% VOM content by weight, as determined based on a monthly average. Resp.

at 8. The Board’s printing regulations require compliance with ink content limitations be

demonstrated continuously or as a daily-weighted average, daily recordkeeping and describe

the VOM content limitation for inks as a percentage of VOM per volume of ink applied rather

than weight of ink applied. In its response, the Agency proposed several conditions that would

modify these requirements to address Formel’s circumstances. Resp. at 19-20.

ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE

In a general rulemaking and a site-specific rulemaking, the Board must take the factors

found at Section 27(a) of the Act into consideration. Those factors are the existing physical

conditions, the character of the area involved, including the character of the surrounding lad

uses, zoning classifications, and the technical reasonability and economic reasonableness of

measuring or reducing a particular type of pollution. 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (1998).

Pursuant to Section 28.1(a) of the Act, the Board may grant an adjusted standard to

persons who can justify the adjustment consistent with Section 27(a). The more specific

2 Prior to receiving its CAAPP Permit, Formel had a permitted, upper limit for its VOM

emission of 78 TPY. Pet. at 5.

procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are found at Section 28.1(c) of the Act

(415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)) and the Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106. The

Board may grant an adjusted standard from a rule of general applicability, whenever the Board

determines that the petitioner, in this case Formel, has presented adequate proof that:

1) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly

different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the

general regulation applicable to that petitioner;

2) the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;

3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered

by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and

4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415 ILCS

5/28.1(c) (1998).

In granting an adjusted standard, the Board may impose conditions that may be

necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(a) (1998).

DISCUSSION

Formel presented information and evidence in its petition and at hearing in support of

each of the factors found at Section 28.1(c) of the Act. The Agency concurred with Formel’s

information and supported granting it the adjusted standard it seeks, but subject to several

conditions. Formel agreed to those conditions at hearing. Tr. at 14. The Board has examined

and considered the facts and arguments made by Formel and the Agency in support of this

petition, most specifically in the context of the criteria contained in Section 28.1 of the Act

(415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)). As discussed below, the Board finds that Formel has satisfactorily

demonstrated the factors in Section 28.1(c). Accordingly, the Board will grant the adjusted

standard with those conditions requested by the Agency and agreed to by Formel.

Factors Relating to Formel are Substantially and Significantly Different

The first criteria which Formel must address is whether the factors relating to Formel

are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board when it

adopted the RACT regulations for the flexographic printing industry. (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c))

Formel maintains that the existing flexographic printing rule does not represent RACT for

Formel. Formel argues that factors relating to it are substantially and significantly different

than those factors considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability. Pet. at

22. Formel contends that when the flexographic printing rule was adopted the record

considered emissions from large flexographic printing operations that have a greater impact on

air quality than the smaller job-shop printers like Formel.

. Formel argues that strict

compliance with the flexographic rule would mean that it would have to either shutdown

because it could not meet the demands of its customers, or incur an unreasonable compliance

cost with the installation and operation of add-on control equipment. Pet. at 6. Formel argues

that the costs of compliance with the flexographic printing rule are too high for a small job-

shop such as itself, whereas the compliance costs are more easily absorbed by the large

printing operations that were considered when the rule was adopted.

. In sum, due to its

size and the type of jobs performed, Formel argues that compliance with the flexographic

printing rule is neither economically reasonable nor technically feasible. Pet. at 23.

The Agency agrees that the factors applicable to Formel are substantially and

significantly different from those considered by the Board when it adopted these rules. Most

specifically, the Agency acknowledges that the cost of add-on control equipment such as an

afterburner system is beyond the costs contemplated by the Board in adopting the flexographic

printing rule, and using other add-on control equipment is infeasible at this operation. Resp. at

15. The Agency also agrees that compliant water-based inks are not RACT for this small job-

shop that prints on plastic substrates. Resp. at 13-14. The Agency’s position and that of

Formel is discussed in greater detail below in the context of the second factor.

The Board concludes that the factors relating to Formel are substantially and

significantly different than those considered by the Board when it adopted the flexographic

rules. When those rules were adopted the Board was primarily presented evidence concerning

methods that larger printing operations could use to achieve compliance with the rules adopted.

The discussions below under the second and third factors further support this finding. The

facts recited there support Formel’s contention and the Agency’s agreement that compliant inks

are not available for the products it prints, and the costs for add-on controls are economically

unreasonable and in some cases also not technically feasible at Formel’s Franklin Park facility.

Existence of Different Factors Justifies an Adjusted Standard for Formel

Formel asserts that it has investigated a number of compliance options. Formel

provides various, different reasons why the compliant water-based inks will not work for its

operations: water-based inks clog the printer’s rollers and dry to the consistency of concrete;

water-based inks do not adhere well to the preferred substrate; humidity, temperature, and

weather conditions influence cure time; color of inks is inconsistent between batches of ink; the

colors are not acceptable to its customers; water-based inks are not heat resistant and do not

run fast enough; disposal costs for water-based inks are nearly three times the cost of disposal

for solvent-based inks; and water-based inks cannot be color-adjusted on the press. Pet. at 10-

12. Because of these problems, Formel is unable to utilize the water-based inks and satisfy its

customers. Pet. at 12; Tr.at 25-29; 30-33

The Agency agrees with Formel that water-based inks do not represent RACT for this

small segment of the industry. Since 1994, the Agency has been working with Formel and

other flexographic printers on compliance issues. Donald O’Malley of Formel served on the

Governor’s Small Business Environmental Task Force at that time and began discussing with

the Agency the problems the flexographic printing on plastic substrates. Over the last six

years, the Agency worked with many companies that have compliance problems. Through

those efforts, the Agency reports that all but Formel and two competitors have found solutions.

Those two competitors are Bema Film Systems, Inc. and Vonco Products, Inc., both of which

have pending before the Board similar adjusted standard petitions. See

In re

Petition of Bema

Film Systems, Inc., AS 00-11 and

In re

Petition of Vonco Products, Inc., AS 00-12.

Over the last six years, the Agency personnel has attended trade shows, spoken with

industry representatives, investigated control devices and special inks (such as water-based,

ultraviolet, etc.), and spoken with environmental agencies across the country. Resp. at 9.

Some of these contacts were in conjunction with Formel’s efforts to find viable compliance

methods. Tr. at 22.

The Agency states that over the course of its investigation, its personnel was repeatedly

told that improvements in water-based inks were just around the corner. However, the Agency

reports that the industry is going backwards. Former users of water-based inks, especially

those using them on plastic substrates, are abandoning water-based ink and returning to solvent

based inks. Resp. at 9-10. The Agency reports that the USEPA and the industry acknowledge

that small job-shops, where each new order mandates a specific substrate and colors, do not

have the time or means to experiment with all possible inks or the ability to control all

conditions necessary to make water-based inks work. Resp. at 11.

The Agency learned that Illinois now has more small flexographic printers than

California due to the stringent compliance problems, and that New York flexographic printers

facing problems similar to Formel have obtained that state’s version of an adjusted standard.

When talking with these other state agencies, the Agency learned that larger facilities generally

add control devices, but that smaller job-shop facilities have greater difficulty complying. The

Agency learned that those state agencies were also aware of the problems encountered with

water-based inks on plastic substrates. Resp. at 9-14.

Formel also investigated the possibility of installing add-on technologies and found that

three technologies were available to its flexographic printing presses: (1) carbon adsorption

technology; (2) wet scrubber technology; and (3) catalytic or thermal oxidation (afterburner)

technology. Pet. at 12. After examining each of these three options, Formel determined that

none of them could reasonable be utilized at its facility for the reduction of VOM emissions.

Tr. at 33-35. The Agency agreed with Formel’s findings. Resp. at 15.

Carbon adsorption is not feasible because, due to the high vapor pressure of the

flexographic ink solvents, efficient adsorption into the carbon beds is precluded. Pet. at 12.

Additionally, the carbon adsorption process cannot efficiently remove some of the chemicals in

the ink solvent, such as alcohol and acetates.

. The wet scrubbers, likewise, do not

effectively remove VOM emissions due to the high vapor pressures of the solvent-based inks.

Pet. at 13.

While the catalytic or thermal oxidation technology is adaptable to a process such as

Formel’s, this technology is prohibitively expensive, and is therefore not economically

reasonable for this type of operation. Pet. at 13. Formel also explained that the structure

required to capture VOM emissions to be sent to afterburners presents technical problems, and

unreasonable costs. Also the costs for altering the existing dryers is in excess of $100,000 and

cannot be guaranteed to achieve compliance. The cost for testing such a system is estimated at

$40,000 per test/per press. The combined costs could easily exceed $200,000 per press. Pet.

at 14.

There are also significant safety and insurance considerations involved with the type of

permanent total enclosures Formel would have to use since local (or hood) capture systems are

not adequate

Pet. at 14. Due to fire and explosion concerns involved with confining VOM in

an enclosed space, such constructions would mean the addition of fire-safe, masonry walls and

additional exits. Due to size constraints and access problems, Formel explains that a

permanent total enclosure is not a viable option at its Franklin Park facility. Pet. at 15.

Formel submitted evidence in support of its claim that add-on controls are economically

unreasonable. Pet. at Exh. B. Formel summarized all the costs associated with control in

Exhibit B. It concludes that the annual minimal control costs would be $10,911 per ton of

VOM. The maximum cost is estimated at $18,041. Formel claims that this is greater than the

standard cost for RACT under the Clean Air Act. Pet. at 16.

In addition to investigating the availability of compliant inks, the Agency also examined

the add-on controls compliance methods which may be available to Formel. Resp. at 7. The

Agency cites to amendments to Formel’s Petition at Exhibit B, and submitted it as Attachment

A to the Agency’s response. The Agency considered those costs unique to Formel, most

specifically the installation costs for add-on controls. The Agency acknowledges that Formel

would need to install this equipment on its roof due to lack of sufficient ground space. This

would require strengthening roof supports, constructing additional ductwork, rental of

construction equipment, and cost incurred from halting production. The annual costs were

estimated as $662,062 for a recuperative thermal oxidizer; $398,001 for a regenerative thermal

oxidizer; and $220,932 for a gas adsorber. These costs do not include basic ductwork that is

estimated as $20,162, $12,441, and $7,264 respectively. The last is not a viable alternative

due to safety and space concerns. Resp. at 7.

The Agency agrees with Formel’s assertion that compliance with the rule of general

applicability for Formel is not economically reasonable or technically feasible. Resp. at 15.

The Agency therefore agrees that the existence of different factors involving Formel’s

particular business justifies the requested adjusted standard.

The Board has considered the evidence submitted by Formel and the Agency’s response

and summary of its own investigations. The Board finds persuasive the search that the Agency

and Formel have diligently engaged in for the past six years to find compliance methods for

Formel. That search demonstrates that in the case of Formel, “no control” represents RACT

for Formel. The Agency informed the Board that this segment of the printing industry is going

backwards in terms of using water-based inks, and that add-on technology is not technically or

economically available to Formel. Based on this evidence and information, the Board finds

that Formel has demonstrated that its facility has factors that distinguish it from other

flexographic printers.

The Adjusted Standard Will Not Result in Environmental or Health Effects Substantially and

Significantly More Adverse

Formel operates a small job-shop. Currently, Formel is operating under a CAAAP

permit that allows it to emit up to 80 TPY. Although no information was submitted with

regard to emissions from 1999 or 2000, the annual emissions from 1994 through 1998 were

below the 80 TPY permitted maximum. There are no schools or residential areas located in

close proximity to the facility. Pet. at 5. Formel contends that the overall effect of its

proposed adjusted standard on the air shed would be insignificant. Formel analyzed its

potential impacts. It calculated that its annual emissions account for roughly 0.008006141

percent of the total VOM emissions in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area air shed. Formel

based this percentage on USEPA’s estimated annual VOM emissions of 849,348 tons in the

Chicago ozone nonattainment area and an annual estimated VOM emissions total of 68 tons per

year attributable to Formel. Pet. at 19; Resp. at 18.

Formel then refined these figures to examine its emissions during the ozone season. In

its petition, Formel advocated that the Board consider the difference between the volume of

uncontrolled VOM under the proposed adjusted standard and the volume of uncontrolled VOM

with an approved oxidizer during the ozone season. Pet. at 18. First, Formel assumed that it

roughly emits 68 TPY of VOM. Next it assumed that it would control 60% of the VOM for

5/12th of the year,

i.e

., the ozone season from May until October. In other words, without

controls, Formel would emit 50 TPY of VOM, and with add–on controls it would emit 18

TPY. Formel calculated that this represents 0.005086254% of the VOM emissions emitted in

the Chicago ozone nonattainment area during the ozone season. Formel contends that in the

context of only three exceedances of the ozone NAAQS since 1998, its contribution of 50

additional tons is not significant. Formel also calculated its contribution of VOM during the

ozone season using 99 TPY as its annual emissions because when it originally petitioned for

the adjusted standard that is the amount it sought to emit annually. Using that assumption,

Formel calculated that if add-on controls were added, it would control 41.25 tons; without

controls, Formel would contribute an additional 16.5 tons during the ozone season. Pet. at 20.

Finally, Formel acknowledges that the State’s Emissions Reduction Market System

(ERMS) Rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 205 apply to Formel. Therefore, Formel will be required

to provide control or purchase emissions credits from the ERMS market during the ozone

season even if it is granted the adjusted standard. Under its current CAAPP permit, Formel

will be considered a participating source in the ERMS program and agrees to file a formal

application for emission credits. Pet at 20-21. Formel asks that its baseline be based upon the

adjusted standard and not the flexographic printing rule. The Agency agrees with this concept.

Resp. at 18.

Adjusted Standard is Consistent with Federal Law

Formel

maintains

that granting this adjusted standard would not violate any federal

laws. Pet. at 21. The Clean Air Act and Illinois regulations require that Formel comply with

RACT.

. The Board is empowered to determine what is RACT.

. Accordingly, Formel

argues that the Board has the authority to grant the adjusted standard by finding that the terms

of the adjusted standard are RACT for Formel, thereby satisfying the federal requirements.

If granted, the adjusted standard would be included by the Agency as a rule specific to Formel

in the State Implementation Plan for Illinois. Resp. at 8.

AGREED CONDITIONS

In its response to the petition for adjusted standard, the Agency recommends the Board

grant the requested adjusted standard with specific conditions. Resp. at 19. Formel has agreed

to each of the conditions recommended by the Agency. Tr. at 14. The conditions fall into two

basic categories: recordkeeping and ERMS baseline. The exact conditions are specified more

fully in the Board’s order.

Recordkeeping. Formel requested two items concerning recordkeeping. First it

requested that it be required to maintain and submit monthly records instead of the daily

recordkeeping required under the flexographic rules. Formel prepared a videotape of its

operations to demonstrate the difficulties involved in daily recordkeeping. Exh. 1; Tr. at 35-

37. Despite those difficulties, Formel agreed to daily recordkeeping. Tr. at 36-37. The

Agency believes that daily recordkeeping is not unduly burdensome for Formel. The Agency

explained that daily recordkeeping is preferred because ozone has an hourly standard measured

on a daily basis. The Agency did inquire with USEPA about its position, and USEPA agreed

that Formel had not justified a change for the rule’s daily recordkeeping requirement. The

Agency did not recommend monthly recordkeeping in its response. Resp. at 16-17.

Secondly, Formel requested a change in the method for measuring VOM content for

recordkeeping and emissions calculation. Formel wants to use the weight percent of VOM

rather than the volume percent as required by the existing flexographic printing rule. Formel

explained that the volume percentages are difficult because its ink formulations are based on

weight. The Agency agreed that weight percentages represent an appropriate method for this

facility. It also explained that weight percentages are preferred for permitting purposes

because that is the type of calculation that must be used for annual reporting. In addition, this

measurement method is preferred for calculating emissions for the ERMS program.

Therefore, the Agency recommended this change as a component of the adjusted standard.

Resp. at 17

ERMS Baseline Under the Adjusted Standard. As previously mentioned, Formel asks

that its ERMS baseline be based upon the adjusted standard versus the flexographic printing

rule. The Agency supports this principle, but recommends an approach somewhat different

from Formel’s so that the baseline will minimize excess emissions during the ozone season.

The Agency recommends that a separate method for calculating Formel’s baseline be

included in the terms of the adjusted standard. Specifically, the Agency recommends that the

baseline be adjusted to reflect compliance with a VOM content limitation of 72% by weight of

the ink applied. This condition would prompt Formel to minimize seasonal VOM emissions at

its facility, or in the alternative, obtain allotment trading units in the ERMS market. The

Agency notes that the allotment Formel will actually receive will reflect a 12% reduction from

this baseline emissions level to achieve the post-RACT emission reductions sought under

ERMS. This is keeping with the Agency’s conclusion that under the proposed adjusted

standard, RACT for this facility will represent almost uncontrolled emissions. Resp. at 18-19.

As previously stated, Formel agreed to these conditions as well as other conditions

recommended by the Agency to minimize emissions and address any potential impact. Tr. at

14. The Board agrees that the conditions to which Formel and the Agency agreed are

appropriate conditions to the requested adjusted standard and are necessary to minimize the

impact the relief granted may have on air quality during the ozone season in the Chicago

AQCR.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that Formel has provided sufficient justification for the proposed

adjusted standard. Accordingly, the Board grants Formel the requested adjusted standard with

the conditions recommended by the Agency and agreed to by Formel.

ORDER

The Board hereby adopts the following adjusted standard, pursuant to the authority of

Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (1998)).

1. This adjusted standard applies to Formel Industries, Inc.’s (Formel), three

existing central-impression flexographic printing presses (press) at its Franklin

Park, Illinois facility only to the extent that the press is being used for printing

on plastic, such as polypropylene, polyester, cellophane and polyethylene (high-

slip), and does not apply to any printing operations on other substrates.

2. Formel may apply any coating or ink with volatile organic material (VOM)

content less than or equal to eighty-two percent (82%) by weight of the coating

and ink (minus water and any compounds that are specifically exempted from

the definition of VOM) on a monthly-weighted average basis. Compliance with

this limitation must be demonstrated through the applicable coating and ink

analysis test methods and procedures specified in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.105(a)

and the recordkeeping requirements specified in condition (4) below.

3. For purposes of establishing an Emissions Reduction Market System (ERMS)

baseline for Formel, its actual emissions from the appropriate baseline seasonal

allotment period will be adjusted downward to reflect usage of coatings and inks

containing no more than seventy-two percent (72%) VOM by weight of the

coatings and inks (minus water and any compounds that are specifically

exempted from the definition of VOM) applied.

4. Formel shall collect and record the following information each day for each

printing press subject to this adjusted standard and maintain the information at

the Franklin Park facility for a period of five years:

A) The name and identification number of each coating and ink as applied;

B) The VOM content and the weight of each coating and ink as applied each

day;

C) The monthly-weighted average VOM content of all coating and inks as

applied.

Any record showing violation of this adjusted standard shall be reported by

sending a copy of such record to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) within 30 days following the occurrence of this violation.

Formel must perform (alone or in conjunction with others) three experiments

each year, including any experiments requested by the Agency, of alternative

inks to determine if these inks are compliant with the Flexographic Printing

Rule and technically feasible for Formel’s printing operations. In addition,

Formel will experiment with substrates as suggested by the Agency. Forty-five

days following each experiment conducted pursuant to this provision, Formel

must report its findings and supporting documentation to the Agency;

6. Formel shall continue to investigate alternative control technologies, including

any technologies suggested by the Agency.

7. Each year, in conjunction with submittal of its annual Clean Air Act Permit

Program (CAAPP) compliance certification or its annual emissions report if a

CAAPP compliance certification is not required, Formel shall submit a report to

the Agency describing the investigations of compliant inks and coatings,

different substrates, and add-on control technologies it has undertaken in the

previous calendar year and the results of these investigations;

8. Formel must operate any other flexographic printing press at its Franklin Park,

facility in full compliance with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401.

9. This adjusted standard must be revised or withdrawn if Formel no longer prints

the majority of its images on high-slip substrates, or on the outside surface of

the high-slip substrate;

10. This adjusted standard must be revised or withdrawn if Formel determines that

any add-on control system is economically reasonable and technically feasible or

if Formel uses any add-on control system that controls VOM emissions;

11. This adjusted standard must be revised if it becomes feasible for Formel to use

compliant inks and coatings for the majority of its printing operations;

12. This adjusted standard must be withdrawn if it becomes feasible for Formel to

use compliant inks and coatings for all three presses subject to this adjusted

standard; and

13. If this adjusted standard is revised or withdrawn and Formel is a participating

source in the ERMS program, Formel’s ERMS baseline will be adjusted

downward to the extent that the new or revised requirements for the three

presses subject to this adjusted standard would result in lower baseline

emissions. If such an adjustment to Formel’s ERMS baseline is required by this

provision, the seasonal allotment period used in its original baseline

determination shall be used to determine its adjusted baseline. Formel must

submit a CAAPP application for a revised baseline, as required by this

provision, within 60 days of final withdrawal of, or revision to this adjusted

standard.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1998)) provides for

the appeal of final Board orders to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days of the date of

service of this order. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes such filing requirements.

See 172 Ill. 2d R. 335; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.520, Motions for Reconsideration.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that

the above opinion and order was adopted on the 18th day of January 2001 by a vote of 7-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board