A 9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MAITER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM

GROUP II CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

RIO-8

(Rulemaking-Air)

NOTICE

To: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

l1linois Pollution Control Board

Jamcs R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE UST

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with thc Office ofthe Pollution Control

Board the SECOND MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL ofthe Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: O)g;y;>.. ibju.~ Dana Vetterhoffer

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: December 7, 2009

1021 N. Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, lL 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM

GROUP II CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 21 1,218, and 219

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

RIO-8

(Rulemaking-Air)

SECOND MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL

The Proponent, the Illinois Envirorunental Protection Agency ("TlIinois EPA"), by its

attorney, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.500 and 102.402, moves that the Illinois

Pollution Control Board ("Board") amend Parts 218 and 219 ofthis ruJemaking proposal. In

support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA slates as follows:

I. On July 9, 2009, the Illinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to amend 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Parts 21 I, 218, and 219 to control the emissions ofvoJatile organic materials ("VOM")

from Group II Consumer and Commercial Product categories. The proposal implements

reasonably available control technology for such categories in response to control techniques

guidelines issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

2. On September 14, 2009, the Illinois EPA filed a Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal,

which the Board granted on October 15, 2009. The Illinois EPA proposes an additional

amendment to its proposal, as follows.

3. In response to a recent request for clarification from an industry representative, the

Illinois EPA recommends amending Section 218/219.187(b)(I) to specify that the YOM content

limitations set forth in slIch Section apply to as-used cleaning solutions, excluding water and

1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7, 2009

other compounds exempted from the definition ofVOM. This proposed amendment is

consistent with the JIIinois EPA's original intent and with existing YOM regulations.

Seclioll 218/219. 187(b)(1):

b) Material and Control Requirements. No owner or operator of a source

subject to this Section shall perfoml any cleaning operation subject to this

Section unless the owner or operator meets the requirements in subsection

(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3):

1) The YOM content ofthe as-used cleaning solutions (minus water

and any compounds which are specifically exempted from the

definition of YOM) does not exceed the following cmissions

limitations:

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the JlIinois EPA moves that the Board

amend Parts 218 and 219 as set forth herein.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

BY:~~ Dana Vetterhoffer

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: December 7, 2009

1021 N. Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 7,2009

BEFORE THE lLUN01S POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE

ORGAN1C MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM

GROUP ]] CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35 lLL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

RI0-8

(Rulemaking-Air)

CERTlF1CATE OF SERV1CE

I, the undersigned, an altomey, state that 1 have served electronically the attached

SECOND MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL upon the following person:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, llIinois 60601-3218

and electronically to the following persons:

SEE ATTACHEDSERV1CE LIST.

lLLlNOlS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: Q\q < .£L~Z¥ Dana Vetterho er

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: December 7, 2009

1021 N, Grand Ave. East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 1, 2009

Service List RI 0-8

Timothy J. Fox

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 J

fox t@ipcb.state.il.us

Virginia Yang

Deputy Legal Counsel

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, 1L 62702-1271

virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement

Office ofthe Attorney General

69 W. Washington St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60602

mdunn@atg.state.iJ.us

Katherine D. Hodgc

Monica T. Rios

Hodge Dwyer & Driver

3150 Roland Ave.

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

khodge@hddattomeys.com

mrios@hddattornevs.com

Alcc M. Davis

General Counsel

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 E. Adams St.

Springfield, IL 6270J

adavis@ierg.org
A 10
Page 1

R10-8

(

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

DECEMBER 8, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY

AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

EMISSIONS FROM GROUP TO

CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE

CODE 211, 218, and 219.

BOARD

REeelVEJiI

CLERK'S OFFICE

DEClj 2009

STATE OF ILLlN_C S

Pollution Control Be ard

c

,(

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the

above-entitled cause, taken before Rebecca A.

Graziano, Certified Shorthand Reporter within and

for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at the

Thompson Center, Room 9-040, Chicago, Illinois,

commencing at the hour of 9:00 a.m. on the 8th day

of December, A.D., 2009.
(

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 2

A P PEA RAN C E S

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Mr. Timothy J. Fox

Ms. Carrie Zalewski

Mr. G. Tanner Girard

Ms. Andrea S. Moore

Mr. Anand Rao

Mr. Gary Blankenship

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. Dana Vetterhoffer

Mr. David Bloomberg
A 11
RI0-8

(Rulemaking - Air)

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 9, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL )

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE )

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM)

GROUP II CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL )

PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS )

TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, AND 219 )

HEARING OFFICER ORDER

~ECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

DEC 092009

STATE OF IWNOIS

Pollution Control Board

The second hearing in this proceeding took place Tuesday, December 8, 2009, in

Chicago. The Board expects to receive the transcript ofthat second hearing no later than Friday,

December 11,2009. Upon receiving the transcript, the Board will post it to the Board's Web site

at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

Under the Board's procedural rules, "[a]ny person may submit written comments on any

proposal within 14 days after the receipt ofthe hearing transcript in Board offices unless

otherwise specified by the hearing officer or the Board." 35 TIl. Adm. Code 102.108(b).

Accordingly, the Board will hold open a post-hearing comment period until Monday, December

28,2009. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(a) (accounting for State holidays in computing times).

Any participant in this proceeding who wishes to file a post-hearing comment with the

Board is directed to do so on or before Monday, December 28, 2009. Comments and other

documents may be filed electronically through the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the

Board's Web site. In the event that the Board issues a proposal for first notice, the Board's

procedural rules provide for an additional period ofpublic comment. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

102.108(a), 102.604; see 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2006).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Timothy J. Fox

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, llIinois 60601

312-814-6085

foxt@ipcb.state.il.us
A 12
Mostardli Platt Z~'W!:6"trJ.7t#!efttaC ~~...,.r.~-,,"~._"

December 23, 2009

John ThelTiault

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Attn: RIO-8 Rulemaking - Air: Lithographic Printing Rules

To whom it may concern,

1520 Kensington Road, Suite 204

Oak Brook, Illinois 60523-2139

Phone 630-993-2100

fax 630-993'9017

www.mostardiplattenv.com

lFio:C CLERK~l~lfl:J'

DEC 282009

STATEQ

POllUtion C~~tLLl'NO/S ro Board

.~y

I wish to submit comments regarding the proposed changes to the Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions Standards drafted

by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (!PCB) that incorporates United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) into

Illinois regulations. I spccifically wish to request clarification be added in the rule for

control device destruction efficiencies.

I am an environmental consultant that represents a heatset offset lithographic printer who

recently installed a replacement catalytic oxidizer on three (3) older heatset lithographic

printing lines. (Note: older heatset presses did not have integrated afterburners as the new

presses do.) The control device efficiency was pelmitted at 90% as allowed by current

regulations. When USEPA finalized the Offset Lithographic Printing Materials and

Letterpress Printing Materials CTG they allowed for existing printing lines with control

devices to have minimum 90% destruction efficiency. Illinois has incorporated that

language as follows:

218.407 (a)(1)(C) An afterburner is installed and operated so that VOM emissions

(excluding methane and ethane) from the press dryer exhausts are

reduced as follows:

i) Prior to May 1,2010, by 90 percent, by weight, or to a

maximum afterburner exhaust outlet concentration of 20

ppmv (as carbon); and

i) On and after May I, 20 I0, by at least 95 percent, by

weight, or to a maximum afterburner exhaust outlet

concentration of20 ppmv (as carbon)

We request that this language be a little clearer to show what is being addressed, the

printing line, the afterburner, or both. Also we request that the language be clearer that it

is the installation/operation date of the unit that deternlines what percent efficiency must
be achieved, and not that all control deviccs must perfonll at a highcr destruction

efficiency after May I, 20 IO.

The following section also requires similar clarification that it is the date of installation of

the control device that determines what control efficiency must be attained:

218.407 (b) An owner or operator of a heatset web offset lithographic printing

line subject to the requirements of(a)(1 )(C) ofthis Section may

use a control device othcr than an afterburner, if:

I) The control device reduces YOM emissions from the press dryer

exhaust(s) are reduced as follows:

A) Prior to May I, 2010, by at least 90 pcrcent, by

weight, or to a maximum afterburner exhaust outlet

concentration 01'20 ppmv (as carbon); and

B) On and after May I, 2010;

i) By at least 95 percent, by weight; or

ii) To a maximum control device exhaust outlet

concentration 01'20 ppmv (as carbon)

Current heatset lithographic presses are designed with an integrated drying oven / thennal

oxidizer control. These units easily achieve the proposed 95% destruction rate and are

cost effective when purchasing new heatset presses. Many existing older units, however,

require stand alone control devices. They are not engineered for optimized (lower) dryer

air flow rates. As control device operational costs (natural gas usage) are high for thcse

older presses it is more cost effective to duct emissions to catalytic oxidizers for control.

Catalyst efficiency may slightly reduce over time and we wish to ensure that it is clear in

the rules that these units will always be able to comply with the 90% destruction

mlnUllunl.

Please provide clarification whether it is the effective operation date ofthe printing line

or the control device, or both in relation to the May I, 2010 control efficiency

requirement. Will existing printing lines installed and operated prior to May 1,2010 that

require a stand alone control devicc bc allowed to install new control devices that meet

the 90% minimum destruction efficiency? Or will the control device installation /

operation date determine what destruction efficiency is required? (that thc 95% minimum

destruction efficiency is for printing units "installed and operated" after May 1,2010).

If the control device installation/operation date is the determining factor, can it be made

clear that all existing units maintain their status (90% destruction) through all equipment

maintenance and repair, including replacement of catalyst? This could create a financial

burden on sources to replace control devices that were compliant with the lithographic

printing rules when the printing units were installed.
Please note that the bulk of heatset lithographic printing emissions come from cleanup

solvents, not the inks. Cleanup solvents are not controlled by the oxidizer when hand

applied with rags. The destruction efficiency will not affect these emissions, as they are

limited by the solvent vapor pressure and work practices.

If you have any questions regarding this clarification request, please feel free to contact

me at (630) 993-2138 or bye-mail atbmcerman@mostardiplattenv.com. Thank you for

your consideration ofour request.

Bruce 1m

Senior Envirom ental Consultant

Mostardi Platt Environmental
A 13
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 7, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

REASONABLY AYAILABLE CONTROL )

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR YOLATILE )

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM )

GROUP II CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL )

PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS )

TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 )

Proposed Rule. First Notice.

RIO-08

(Rulemaking - Air)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):

On July 9, 2009, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or Illinois EPA)

filed a proposal under thc general rulemaking provisions of Sections 27, 28, and 28.2 ofthe

Environmental Protection Act (Act). See 415 ILCS 5/27,28,28.2 (2008). In an order dated

October 15, 2009, the Board granted the Agency's motion to amend the proposal. On December

7, 2009, the Agency filed a second motion to amend the proposal, which the Board addresses

below under the heading "Preliminary Marter." Generally, the Agency has proposed air

pollution regulations to control emissions of volatile organic material (YOM) for Group II

Consumer & Commercial Products in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and

above. Group II products include industrial cleaning solvents, flat wood paneling coatings,

flexible packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials, and lerterpress printing

materials.

The first-notice amendments described below are intended primarily to reduce YOM

emissions from the Group II product categories in order to meet Illinois' obligations under the

Clean Air Act (CAA). Publication ofthese proposed amendments in the lllinois Register will

begin a 45-day public comment period.

In this opinion, the Board first reviews the procedural history ofthis rulemaking before

addressing a single preliminary matter and then briefly reviewing federal regulation ofYOM

emissions. Next, the Board summarizes the Agency's amended proposal on a section-by-section

basis. The Board then summarizes single post-hearing comment it received before addressing

potentially affected sources and projected emission reductions and technical and economic

considerations. The Board then concludes to adopt the amended proposal for first notice under

the illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5ILCS 100/1-1 et seq. (2008)). The order following

the opinion then sets forth the proposed amendments for first-notice publication in the lllinois

Register.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2

On July 9, 2009, the Agency filed a rulemaking proposal to amend Parts 211, 218, and

219 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations (Prop. 211, Prop. 218, and Prop. 219, respectively).

The Agency filed the proposal under the general rulemaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of

the Act. See 415 ILCS 5/27,28 (2008). Among other documents, a Statement ofReasons (SR)

and a Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanied the proposal. The Agency also filed a

motion for waiver of copy requirements and a motion for expedited review. In an order dated

August 6, 2009, the Board accepted the Agency's proposal for hearing, granted the Agency's

motion for waiver of copy requirements, and denied the Agency's motion for expedited review.

In a letter dated August 6, 2009, the Board requested that the Department of Commerce

and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) conduct an economic impact study of the Agency's

rulemaking proposal. See 415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2008). DCEO has not responded to the Board's

request.

In an order dated August 12, 2009, the hearing officer scheduled a first hearing to begin

on October 27, 2009, in Edwardsville and a second hearing to begin December 8, 2009, in

Chicago. The order directed participants wishing to pre-file testimony for the first hearing to do

so no later than September 15,2009. The order also directed participants to pre-file questions

based on pre-filed testimony no later than September 29, 2008. Finally, the order directed

participants whose pre-filed testimony elicited pre-filed questions to pre-file written answers to

those questions no later than October 13,2009. The order also provided that pre-filing deadlines

for the second hearing would be set at a later date.

On September 14, 2009, the Agency pre-filed the testimony ofMr. David E. Bloomberg

and a motion to amend its rulemaking proposal (Mot. Amend I). No other participant pre-filed

testimony for the first hearing, and no participant pre-filed questions based on Mr. Bloomberg's

pre-filed testimony. No participant filed a response to the Agency's motion to amend its

rulemaking proposal. In an order dated October IS, 2009, the Board granted the Agency's

motion to amend.

The first hearing took place as scheduled on October 27, 2009, and the Board received

the transcript ofthe first heating (Tr.I) on October 29,2009. During the first hearing, the

hearing officer admitted into the record one exhibit, the pre-filed testimony ofMr. Bloomberg

(Bloomberg Test.).

In an order dated October 28, 2009, the hearing officer directed participants wishing to

pre-file testimony for the second hearing to do so no later than November 17, 2009. See Tr.1 at

25. The order also directed participants to pre-file questions based upon pre-filed testimony no

later than December 3, 2009. ld. No participant pre-filed testimony or questions for the second

hearing.

On December 7, 2009, the Agency filed a second motion to amend its rulemaking

proposal (Mot. Amend 2). That motion is addressed below under "Preliminary Matter."

The second hearing took place as scheduled on December 8, 2009, and the Board

received the transcript ofthe second hearing (Tr.2) on December 11, 2009. No participant
3

offered testimony at the second hearing. See Tr.2 at 7. Regarding the Board's request that

DCEO conduct an economic impact study ofthe Agency's proposal, no participant wished to

offer testimony or comment. See Tr.2 at 8. In an order dated December 9, 2009, the hearing

officer set a deadline ofDecember 28; 2009, to filing ofpost-hearing comments. See 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 102.1 08(b)

On December 28,2009, the Board received a post-hearing comment from Mr. Bruce

Meerman, Senior Environmental Consultant, Mostardi Platt Environmental (PC I).

Filing Public Comments

First-notice publication of these proposed mles in the Illinois Register will start a period

of at least 45 days during which any person may file a public comment with the Board,

regardless ofwhether the person has already filed a public comment in this proceeding. See 5

ILCS I 00/5-40(b) (2008) (l1linois Administrative Procedure Act).

Public comments must be filed with the Clerk of the Board at the following address:

Pollution Control Board

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 I

The docket number for this mlemaking, RIO-8, should be indicated on any public comment in

this proceeding.

Please note that all filings with the Clerk ofthe Board must be served on the hearing

.officer and on those persons on the Service List for this rulemaking. Before filing any document

with the Clerk, please cheek with the the Clerk's Office to verify the current version ofthe

Service List.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

On December 7, 2009, the Agency filed a second motion to amend its rulemaking

proposal. The motion seeks a single amendment to Sections 218.187 and 219.187 concerning

the YOM content of as-used cleaning solutions. Mot. Amend 2 at 1-2.

Section 100.500(d) ofthe Board's procedural rules provides in pertinent part that,

"[w]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the motion. If no

response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection to the granting ofthe

motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board or the hearing officer in its

disposition ofthe motion." 35 HI. Adm. Code 101.500(d). No participant has filed a response to

the Agency's second motion to amend. Having reviewed the Agency's second motion to amend,

the Board grants the motion and amends the Agency's rulemaking proposal as requested. The
4

Board addresses the substance ofthe amendment in addressing Sections 218.187 and 219.187 in

its summary ofthe Agency's amended proposal below. See infra at 15.

BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL YOM REGULATION

The Agency states that its rulemaking proposal intends to satisfy Illinois' obligation

under the CAA to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing requirements for sources

ofVOM emissions in areas designated as nonattainment with the National Ambient Air.Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. SR at I, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502, 7511a.

The Agency characterizes YOM 1 as "a primary precursor to the formation of groundlevel ozone," which is formed when YOM reacts with oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere in

the presence ofsunlight. SR at 2-3, citing 71 Fed. Reg. 58746 (Oct. 5,2006); see TSD at 1-2. In

1997, the United Statcs Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) revised NAAQS for ozone

by instituting an 8-hour standard. !d. at 3, citing 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997). Two

Illinois areas, Chicago and St. Louis/Metro East, have been designated as moderate

nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone standard. 2 SR at 3.

These nonattainment designations trigger CAA requirements "for adopting regulations

that reduce emissions sufficiently to demonstrate attainment ofthe standard." Jd. at 4, citing 42

U.S.C. § 7502(c)(J); see Bloomberg Test at 3. Specifically, the Agency claims that the CAA

requires Illinois "to submit VOC regulations constituting RACT [reasonably available control

technology] for Group II Consumer and Commercial Product Categories in ozone nonattainment

areas classified as moderate and above." SR at 5, citing 42 U.S.c. §§ 7502(c)(J), 751Ia(b)(2);

see TSD at I. The Agency defines RACT "as the lowest emission limitation that a particular

source can meet by applying a control technique that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility." SR at 5, citing 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (Sept. 17, 1979); see

TSD at I, Bloomberg Test. at 3. The Agency states that "Illinois was required to submit its SIP

revisions by October 5, 2007." SR at 5.

The Agency states that the CAA requires that USEPA "conduct a study ofthe emissions

of VOC into the ambient air from consumer and commercial products in order to determine their

potential to contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS and to establish criteria

for regulating emissions ofVOC from those products." SR at 2, citing 71 Fed. Reg. 58746 (Oct.

5,2006). The Agency further states that the CAA provides that "[t]he Administrator shall list

those categories of consumer or commercial products that the Administrator determines, based

on the study, account for at least 80 percent ofthe VOC emissions ... from consumer or

1 The Agency states that YOM and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are "effectively the

same" as one another. SR at 1.

2 The Chicago nOnattainment area includes the following jurisdictions: Cook, DuPage, Kane,

Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Goose Lake and Aux Sable Townships in Grundy County,

and Oswego Township in Kendall County. SR at 3, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.314; see TSD at 1. The

St. Louis/Metro East nonattainment includes the following Illinois counties: Jersey, Madison,

Monroe, and St. Clair. SR at 3, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.314; see TSD at 1.
5

commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone" and separate those categories

into groups. SR at 3, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7511b(e)(3)(A).

The Agency claims that "[t]he CAA requires that USEPA then either regulate VOC

emissions from such categories or issue a CTG [control technology guideline] in lieu of a

national regulation ifthe Administrator detennines that such guidance will be substantially as

effective as regulations in reducing emissions ofVOC which contribute to ozone levels in ozone

nonattainment areas." SR at 4, citing 42 U.S.c. § 751 Ib(e)(3)(C). The Agency states that

"CTGs provide states with recommendations regarding what types of controls could constitute

RACT for VOCs for the applicable source categories." SR at 4, citing 71 Fed. Reg. 58745,

58747 (Oct. 5,2006). The Agency claims that "[s]tates must either adopt regulations to

implement the recommendations in the CTG or adopt alternative approaches that constitute

RACT, either ofwhich must be submitted to the USEPA for review and approval as part of the

SIP process." SR at 4, citing 71 Fed. Reg. 58745, 58747 (Oct. 5,2006).

'Ille Agency states that, instead of national regulations controlling VOC emissions,

"USEPA issued final CTGs for Group II Consumer and Commercial Product Categories" on

October 5, 2006. SR at 4. The Agency further states that, in developing the CTG's, "USEPA

evaluated the sources ofVOM emissions from the applicable industries, the available control

possibilities to address the associated emissions, and the cost ofsuch control measures." TSD at

1. The Agency indicates that "USEPA required that states submit SIP revisions in response to

the CTGs within one year." Id., citing 71 Fed. Reg. 58745-53 (Oct. 5,2006). Specifically, the

Agency states that Illinois must revise its SIP to include RACT for sources ofVOM emissions

covered by a USEPA CTG issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment. SR at

2, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7511 a(b)(2); see TSD at 1, Bloomberg Test. at 3.

The Agency states that "Illinois is required to submit these SIP revisions before the

USEPA can redesignate the Chicago and Metro East nonattainment area as attaining the 1997

ozone NAAQS, regardless ofwhether the VOC reductions obtained by the SIP revisions are

actually necessary to achieve attainment ofthe NAAQS." SR at 6, citing Wall v. USEPA, 265

F.2d 426, 433, 440-42 (6th Cir. 2001); 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(E). The Agency notes that, on

July 2, 2007, it "submitted to the USEPA an attainment demonstration for the Metro East

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS." SR at 7. The Agency further notes

that, on March 19,2009, it submitted an attainment demonstration for the Chicago nonattainment

area. !d. The Agency argues that "[t]hese areas cannot be redesignated to attainment ofthe

ozone NAAQS, however, unless and until the Illinois EPA submits SIP revisions in response to

the Group I1 CTGs and the USEPA approves such revisions." !d. The Agency claims that its

proposal seeks "to implement the recommendations contained in the CTGs to the extent that such

recommendations are consistent with, and impose stricter requirements than, existing

regulations." Id.

The Agency also notes that USEPA recently strengthened the eight-hour ozone standard..

SR at 7, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (Mar. 27,2008); see TSD at I. The Agency considers it

"likely" that areas designated as nonattainment for the current standards will be designated

nonattainment for the revised standard. SR at 7. The Agency argues that "[w]hile attainment of

the revised standard is not the purpose ofthis rulemaking, it should be noted that any reduction
6

in YOM emissions in the nonatlainment areas resulting from these proposed amendments will

likely help Illinois achieve the revised NAAQS." Jd.; see TSD at 1.

SUMMARY OF AGENCY'S AMENDED PROPOSAL

Part 211

The Agency proposes to amend four definitions in and add 23 new definitions to the

existing Part 211, Definitions and General Provisions. SR at 11-15; see Prop. 211; see generally

35 Ill. Adm. Code 211. The Board summarizes each ofthe proposed amendments and additions

separately in the subsections below.

Section 211.1000: Class II Finish

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Class 11 Finish," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart F of Parts 218 and 219. SR at 11-12; see Prop.

218 at 17-57, Prop. 219 at 17-55. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Class 11 Finish' means a finish that meets the specifications ofVoluntary Product Standard PS59-73, as approvcd by thc American National Standards Institute." Prop. 211 at 13.

Section 211.1745: Digital Printing

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Digital Printing," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 12; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Digital Printing' means, for purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, the transfer

of electronic files directly from a computer to an electronically driven output device that prints

the image directly on the selectcd mcdia (substrate). Printing using home and office cquipment

is excluded from this definition." Prop. 211 at 13.

Section 211.1878: Electrical Apparatus Component

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Electrical Apparatus Component," stating

that it is necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety

that

'Electrical Apparatus Component' means, for purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code

218.187 and 219.187, an internal component such as wires, windings, stators,

rotors, magnets, contacts, relays, energizers, and connections in an apparatus that

generates or transmits electrical energy including, but not limited to, alternators,

generators, transformers, electric motors, cables, and circuit breakers, except for

the actual cabinet in which the components are housed. Electrical components of

graphic arts application equipment and hot-line tools are also included in this

category. Prop. 211 at 13-14.
7

Section 211.1885: Electronic Component

Section 211.1885 of the Board's air pollution regulations now provides that "'Electronic

Component' means, for the purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182(f) and 219.182(f), all

portions of an clectronic assembly, including, but not limited to, circuit board assemblies, printed

wire assemblies, printed circuit boards, soldered joints, ground wires, bus bars, and associated

electronic component manufacturing equipment such as screens and filters." 35 m. Adm. Code

211.1885. The Agency proposes to amend this definition by extending its application to Sections

218.187 and 219.187 and by adding an exception for cabinetshousing components. SR at 12.

As proposed by the Agency, the revised definition would provide that

'Electronic Component' means, for the purposes of35111. Adm. Code 218.182(f),

219.182(f), 218.187, and 219.187, all portions of an electronic assembly,

including, but not limited to, circuit board assemblies, printed wire assemblies,

printed circuit boards, soldered joints, ground wires, bus bars, and associated

electronic component manufacturing equipment such as screens and filters, except

for the actual cabinet in which the components are housed. See Prop. 211 at 14.

The Agency states that these revisions are necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections

218.187 and 219.187. SR at 12; see Prop. 218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17.

Section 211.2355: Flat Wood Paneling

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Flat Wood Paneling," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart F ofParts 218 and 219. SR at 12; see Prop.

218 at 17-57, Prop. 219 at 17-55. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

"'Flat Wood Paneling' means natural finish hardwood plywood panels, hardwood panels with

Class II finishes, tileboard, exterior siding, and printed interior panels made of hardwood,

plywood, or thin particleboard." Prop. 211 at 14.

Section 211.2356: Flat Wood Paneling Coating Line

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Flat Wood Paneling Coating Line," stating

that it is necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart F of Parts 218 and 219. SR at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 17-57, Prop. 219 at 17-55. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its

entirety that '''Flat Wood Paneling Coating Line' means a coating line in which any protective,

decorative, or functional coating is applied to flat wood paneling." Prop. 211 at 14.

Section 211.2368: Flexible Packaging

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Flexible Packaging," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart H of Parts 218 and 219. SR at 12; see Prop_

218 at 57-129, Prop. 219 at 55-130. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety

that
8

'Flexible Packaging' means any package or part of a package, the shape of which

can be readily changed. Flexible packaging includes, but is not limited to, bags,

pouches, liners, and wraps utilizing paper, plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized

or coated paper or film, or any combination of these materials. Shrink-wrap

labels or wrappers (but not self-adhesive labels) printed on or in-line with a

flexible packaging printing press are also considered to be flexible packaging.

Flexible packaging does not include folding cartons, gift wraps, hot stamp foils,

wall coverings, vinyl products, decorative laminates, floor coverings, or tissue

products. Prop. 211 at 14.

Section 211.2615: General Work Surface

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "General Work Surface," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 12-13; see Prop.

218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'General Work Surface' means, for purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and

219.187, an area ofa medical device or pharmaceutical manufacturing facility

where solvent cleaning is performed on work surfaces, but for which cleaning

specifications are not required to be maintained in accordance with criteria and

procedures established to meet requirements ofthe United States Food and Drug

Administration and/or other applicable regulatory agencies with authority over

manufacturing operations for medical devices and/or pharmaceuticals. General

work surfaces shall not include items defined under 'Janitorial Cleanihg.' Prop.

211 at 14-15.

Section 211.2830: Heatset

Section 211.2830 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations now provides that "'Heatset'

means a class oflithography which requires a heated dryer to solidify the printing inks." 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 211.2830. The Agency proposed to amend the definition "to include letterpress

printing lines." SR at 13. The Agency states that this revisions is necessitated by proposed

amendments to Subpart H of Parts 218 and 219. SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 57-129, Prop. 219 at

55-130. As proposed by the Agency, the revised definition would provide in its entirety that

"'Heatset' means a class oflithography or letterpress which requires a heated dryer to solidify

the printing inks." Prop. 211 at 15.

Section 211.2855: Heatset Web Letterpress Printing Line

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Heatset Web Letterpress Printing Line,"

stating that it is necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart H of Parts 218 and 219. SR at

13; see Prop. 218 at 57-129, Prop. 219 at 55-130. The Agency's proposed definition provides in

its entirety that "'Heatset Web Letterpress Printing Line' means a letterpress printing line in

which a continuous roll ofsubstrate is fed through the printing press and an oven is used to

solidify the printing inks." Prop. 211 at 15.
9

Section 211.2965: High Precision Optic

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "High Precision Optic," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 13; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that '''High

Precision Optic' means, for purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, an optical

element used in an electro-optical device that is designed to sense, detect, or transmit light

energy, including specific wavelengths oflight energy and changes in light energy levels." Prop.

211at15,

Section 211.3215: Janitorial Cleaning

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Janitorial Cleaning," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 13; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Janitorial Cleaning' means, for purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, the

cleaning of building or facility components, including, but not limited to, floors, ceilings, walls,

windows, doors, stairs, bathrooms, furnishings, and exterior surfaces of office equipment, and

excludes the cleaning ofwork areas where manufacturing or repair activity is performed." Prop.

211 at IS.

Section 21 I .3305: Lettcrpress Printing Line

The Agency proposes to add a definition of"Letterpress Printing Line," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart H of Parts 218 and 219. SR at 13; see Prop.

218 at 57-129, Prop. 219 at 55-130. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety

that "'Letterpress Printing Line' means a web or sheetfed printing line that does not constitute a

flexographic printing line, in which the image area is raised relative to the non-image area and

the ink is transferred to the substrate directly from the image surface." Prop. 211 at 16.

Section 21,1.3555: Maintenance Cleaning

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Maintenance Cleaning," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 13; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 2] 9 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'Maintenance Cleaning' means, for purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and

219.187, a solvent cleaning operation or activity carried out to ensure that general

work areas where manufacturing or repair activity is performed remains clean,

and to clean tools, machinery, molds, forms, jigs, and equipment. This definition

does not include the cleaning of coatings, adhesives, or ink application

equipment.' Prop. 211 at 16.

Section 2II.3705: Medical Device
10

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Medical Device," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 13; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'Medical Device' means, for purposes of35 JIl. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.1 87,

an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro

reagent or other similar article, including any component Qr accessory, that meets

one or more ofthe following conditions

(a) it is intended for use in the diagnosis ofdisease or other conditions,

or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease;

(b) it is intended to affect the structure or any function ofthe body; or

(c) it is defined in the National Formulary or the United Statcs

Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them. Prop. 211 at 16.

Section 211.3707: Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Medical Device and Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing," stating that it is necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and

219.187. SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition

provides in its entirety that

'Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing' means, for purposes of35

Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, the collection of equipment and activities to

prepare, utilize, maintain, and repair work areas, in order to accomplish one or

more steps in preparing a medical device or pharmaceutical for its intended ·use.

Manufacturing is typically, but not always, conducted in accordance with criteria

and procedures established to meet requirements ofthe United States Food and

Drug Administration andlor other applicable regulatory agencies with authority

over manufacturing operations for global sales of medical devices andlor

pharmaceuticals. Work areas and equipment shall include all machinery, tools,

equipment, rooms, tables, countertops, and facilities for maintaining employee

health and safety that are subject to such criteria and procedures. Prop. 211 at 16-

17.

Section 211.4065: Non-Heatset

Section 211.4065 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations now provides that '''Nonheatse!' means a class oflithography which does not require a heated dryer to solidify the

printing inks. Ultraviolet-cured and electron beam-cured inks are considered non-heatset." 35

Ill. Adm. Code 211.4065. The Agency proposes to revise this definition "to include letterpress

printing lines." SR at 14. The Agency states that this revision is necessitated by proposed

amendments to Subpart H of Parts 218 and 219. SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 57-129, Prop. 219 at

55-130. As proposed by the Agency, the revised definition would provide in its entirety that
II

'''Non-heatset' means a class oflithography or letterpress which does not require a heated dryer

to solidify the printing inks. Ultraviolet-cured and electron beam-cured inks are considered nonheatsel."Prop. 211 at 17.

Section 211.5335: Radiation Effect Coating

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Radiation Effect Coating," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amcndment~ to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 14; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'Radiation Effect Coating' means, for purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and

219.187, a coating or coating system engineered to interact, through absorption or

reflection, with specific regions ofthe electromagnetic energy spectrum, such as

the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, or microwave regions. Uses include, but are not

limited to, lightning strike prevention, electromagnetic pulse protection, and radar

avoidance. Coatings that have been designated 'classified' by the Department of

Defense are not included in this definition. Prop. 211 at 17.

Section 211.5535: Repair Cleaning

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Repair Cleaning," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 14; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Repair Cleaning' means, for purposes of35 111. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, a solvent

cleaning operation or activity carried out during a repair process." Prop. 211 at 17.

Section 211.5585: Research and Development Operation

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Research and Development Operation,"

stating that it is necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at

14; see Prop. 218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its

entirety that

'Research and Development Operation' means, for purposes of35 111. Adm. Code

218.187 and 219.187, an operation whose purpose is for research and

development of new processes and products, that is conducted under the close

supervision oftechnical1y trained personnel, and is not involved in the

manufacture offinal or intermediate products for commercial purposes, except in

a de minimus manner. Prop. 211 at 17.

Section 211.5860: Scientific Instrument

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Scientific Instrument," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 14; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Scientific Instrument' means, for purposes of35 111. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, an
12

instrument, including the components, assemblies, and subassemblies used in their manufacture,

and associated accessories and reagents that is used for the detection, measurement, analysis,

separation, synthesis, or sequencing of various compounds." Prop. 21 I at 18.

Section 211.5875: Screen Printing.

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Screen Printing," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 14; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

"'Screen Printing' means, for purposes of35lll. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, a process in

which the printing ink passes through a taught [sic] screen or fabric to which a refined form of

stencil has been applied. The stencil openings determine the form and dimensions ofthe

imprint." Prop. 211 at 18.

Section 211.5885: Screen Reclamation

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Screen Reclamation," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 14-15; see Prop.

218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Screen Reclamation' means, for purposes of35111. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, a solvent

cleaning activity carried out in a screen printing operation where the screen is completely

cleaned and the stencil removed for recycling or reuse ofthe screen for other production runs."

Prop. 211 at 18.

Section 211.6405: Sterilization Indicating Ink

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Sterilization Indicating Ink," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 15; see Prop. 218

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

"'Sterilization Indicating Ink' means, for purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, an

ink thatchanges color to indicate that sterilization has occurred. Such ink is used to monitor the

sterilization ofmedical instruments, autoclave efficiency, and the thermal processing offoods for

prevention ofspoilage." Prop. 211 at 18.

Section 211.6425: Stripping

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Stripping," stating that it is necessitated by

proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 4-17, Prop.

219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that '''Stripping' means,

for purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, the removal of cured coatings, cured

inks, or cured adhesives." Prop. 211 at 18.

Section 211.6535: Surface Preparation

The Agency proposes to add a definition of "Surface Preparation," stating that it is

necessitated by proposed amendments to Sections 218.187 and 219.187. SR at 15; see Prop. 218
13

at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17. The Agency's proposed definition provides in its entirety that

'''Surface Preparation' means, for purposes of35111. Adm. Code 218.187 and 219.187, the

removal of contaminants such as dust, soil, oil, and grease prior to coating, adhesive, or ink

applications." Prop. 211 at 18-19.

Section 211.7290: Wood Preparation

Section 211.7290 of the Board' air pollution regulations now provides that "'Wood

furniture' means room furnishings including cabinets (kitchen, bath and vanity), tables, chairs,

beds, sofas, shutters, art objects, wood paneling, wood flooring and any other coated furnishings

made of wood, wood composition or fabricated wood materials." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.7920.

The Agency proposed to revise that definition by excluding flat wood paneling from it. SR at

15. The Agency states that this revision is necessitated by proposed amendments to Subpart F of

Parts218and219. Id.; see Prop. 218 at 17-57, Prop. 219at 17-55. As proposed by the Agency,

the revised definition would provide in its entirety that "'Wood furniture' means room

furnishings including cabinets (kitchen, bath, and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, sofas, shutters, art

objects, wood paneling other that flat wood paneling, wood flooring, and any other coated

furnishings made of wood, wood composition, or fabricated wood materials." Prop. 211 at 19.

Part ZI8/Part 219

Subpart A: General Provisions

Existing Sections 218.1 06 and 219.1 06 establish general compliance dates for sources

subject to Parts 218 and 219. See 35111. Adm. Code 218.106,219.106. The Agency "proposes

adding a new subsection (e) to Section 218.106 and a new subsection (c) to Section 219.106...

." SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 4, Prop. 219 at 3. The Agency states that these amendments

"establish May 1, 2010, as the compliance date for sources subject to the flat wood paneling

emission limits." SR at 15.

Subpart E: Solvent Cleaning

Introduction. Existing Subpart E ofboth Parts 218 and 219 addresses YOM emissions

from solvent cleaning operations. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.181-186, 219.181-186. The

Agency states that industrial cleaning solvents include a number ofproducts "used to clean dirt,

soil, oil, and grease as well as remove adhesives, paints, and inks." TSD at 5 (§2.4); see

Bloomberg Test. at 6. The Agency further states that "VOM emissions occur during the cleaning

process while wiping, flushing, brushing, and from the storage and disposal of used solvents and

rags." TSD at 6.

The Agency notes that USEPA has conducted studies ofVOM emissions focusing on six

industries: "automotive, electrical equipment, magnetic tape, furniture, packaging, and

photographic supplies." TSD at 6. The Agency claims that these studies revealed nine major

categories in which cleaning processes result in YOM emissions: "spray gun cleaning, spray

booth cleaning, large manufactured components cleaning, parts cleaning, equipment cleaning,

line cleaning, .floor cleaning, tank cleaning, and small manufactured components cleaning." ld.
14

The Agency argues that the first four account for a majority ofVOM emissions from these

categories and that spray gun cleaning alone accounts for 50 percent. Id. The Agency states that

the CTG nonetheless "recommends coverage of a wide range of cleaning activities" and that its

proposal reflects that recommendation. Id. The Agency emphasizes, however, that the proposal

does not cover "[g]eneral cleaning of offices, bathrooms, and other janitorial type services." Id.

Current Regulations. The Agency states that "Illinois has current regulations for cold

cleaning degreasing, open top vapor degreasing, and conveyorized degreasing operations as well

as some limitations and work practices on cleaning solvent uses in existing rules, e.g.,

regulations regarding autobody refinishing, wood furniture coating, and lithographic printing."

TSD at 17 (§5.4).

Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart E.. The Agency states that its proposal

follows the CTG by establishing an "applicability threshold of 15 pounds per day ofVOM

emissions and in most ofthe required YOM limits." Bloomberg Test. at 6; see TSD at 17. The

Agency further states that affected sources must follow work practice standards regarding

solvent use and either comply with a limit on the YOM content of cleaning solution, "use a low

vapor pressure cleaning solution, or utilize an emissions control system that provides 85 percent

overall control ofVOM emissions from cleaning activities." TSD at 17; see SR at 7, Bloomberg

Test at 6-7, Tr.l at 11-14 (addressing YOM content limit); see generally Prop. 218 at 5-17, Prop.

219 at 3-17.

The Board below summarizes each ofthe Agency's proposed amendments to Subpart E

on a section-by-section basis.

Section 218/219.181: Solvent Cleaning in General. The Agency first proposes to

amend the titles ofthese two sections to "Solvent Cleaning Degreasing Operations." SR at 15-

16; see Prop. 218 at 4, Prop. 219 at 3-4. The Agency also proposes to amend these two sections

"to specify that Sections 218/219.182 through 218/219.184 and Section 218/219.186 are

applicable to cold cleaning, open top vapor, and conveyorized degreasing operations." SR at 16.

Section 218/219.187: Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations. The Agency

proposes to add a new Section 218/219.187. SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 4-17, Prop. 219 at 4-17.

Below, the Board separately summarizes the subsections comprising it.

Subsection (a). The Agency's proposed subsection (a)(1) establishes the section's

applicability by providing that, on and after April 1, 2011, "the requirements in Section

218/219.187 apply to all cleaning operations which use organic materials at sources that emit 6.8

kg/day (15 Ibs/day) or more ofVOM from cleaning operations at the source." SR at 16; see

Prop. 218 at 4, Prop. 219 at 4. In addition, the subsection defines "cleaning operations" for the

purposes ofthis Section as

the process of cleaning products, product components, tools, equipment, or

general work areas during production, repair, maintenance, or servicing, including

but not limited to spray gun cleaning, spray booth cleaning, large and small

manufactured components cleaning, parts cleaning, equipment cleaning, line
15

cleaning, floor cleaning, and tanks cleaning, at sources with emission units. Prop.

218 at4, Prop. 219 at4.

The Agency's proposed subsection (a)(2) "exempts numerous types of cleaning

operations from some or all ofthe limitations in Section 218/219.1 87." SR at 16; see Prop. 218

at 4-7, Prop. 219 at 4-6; see also TSD at 11-12 (Exclusions). The first motion to amend states

that USEPA has notified the Agency that it "may exempt digital printing from the control

requirements set forth in Section 218/219.187 ofits proposal." Mot. Amend I at 1-2 ('12). The

Agency rccommended amending this subsection "by adding digital printing to the list of

exclusions" in Section 218/219. I87(a)(2)(C). ld.

Subsection (bl. Proposed subsection (b) provides that no owner or operator ofa source

subject to this section shall perform subject cleaning operations unless the source complies with

one of three requirements. SR at 16. First, the source may comply with the applicable YOM

content limit. ld; see Prop. 218 at 7-8 (proposed Section 2 I8.187(b)(1 », Prop. 219 at 7-8

(proposed Section 219.187(b)(1). In the second motion to amend, the Agency responds "to a

recent request for clarification from an industry representative...." Mot. Amend 2 at 1-2 (113).

Specifically, the Agency proposes to amend this subsection to provide that the YOM content

limitations "apply to as-used cleaning solution, excluding water and other compounds exempted

from the definition ofYOM." ld. at 1-2. The Agency states that "[t]his proposed amendment is

consistent with the Illinois EPA's original intent and with existing YOM regulations. !d. at 2.

Second, the source may comply by using "cleaning materials with a composite vapor

pressure of no more than 8.00 mmHg measured at 20 degrees Celsius." SR at 16; see Prop. 218

at 8 (proposed Section 218.187(b)(2», Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219.187(b)(2)). Third,

the source can comply by installing and operating an afterburner or carbon adsorber "that

reduces YOM emissions from the subject cleaning operation by at least 85 percent overall." SR

at 16; see Prop. 218 at 8 (proposed Section 218.1 87(b)(3», Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section

219.187(b)(3). The Agency also proposes that

[t]he owner or operator may use an emissions control system other than an

afterburner or carbon adsorber ifsuch device reduces YOM emissions from the

subject cleaning operation by at least 85 percent overall, the owner or operator

submits a plan to the Agency detailing appropriate monitoring devices, test

methods, recordkeeping requirements, and operating parameters for such control

device, and such plan is approved by the Agency and USEPA within federally

enforceable permit conditions. Prop. 218 at 8 (proposed Section 218.187(b)(3»,

Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219.187(b)(3).

Subsection (cl. The Agcncy proposes that the owner or operator of a subject source

"shall demonstrate compliance with this Section by using the applicable test methods and

procedures in Section 218/219.187(g) and by complying with all applicable recordkeeping and

reporting requirements in Section 219.187(e)." SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 8 (proposed Section

218.187(c), Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219.187(c); see also infra at 18 (summarizing

subsection g); infra at 16-18 (summarizing subsection (e).
16

Subsection (d). The Agency proposes that the owner or operator of a subject source must

comply with various operating requirements for each subject cleaning operation. SR at 17. First,

the Agency seeks to require that they "[clover open containers and properly cover and store

applicators used to apply cleaning solvents." Prop. 218 at 9 (proposed Section 218.l87(d)(I ));

Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219.187(d)(I); see SR at 17. Second, the Agency proposes that

they "[m]inimize air circulation around the cleaning operation." Prop. 218 at 9 (proposed

Section 218.187(d)(2)); Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219.187(d)(2); see SR at 17. Third, the

Agency seeks to require that an owner or operator "[d]ispose of all used cleaning solutions,

cleaning towcls, and applicators used to apply cleaning solvents in closed containers" Prop. 218

at 9 (proposed Section 218.187(d)(3)); Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219. I87(d)(3); see SR at

17. Finally, the Agency also proposes that they "[u]tilize equipment practices that minimize

emissions." Prop. 218 at 9 (proposed Section 21 8.1 87(d)(4)); Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section

219.187(d)(4); see SR at 17.

Subsection (e). The Agency proposes various reeordkeeping and reporting requirements

for the owner of operator of various sources. In subsection (e)(I), the Agency proposes that,

by May 1,2010, sources exempt from the limitations of Section 218/219.187

because ofthe criteria in Section 218/219.1 87(a)(I) shall submit a certification to

the Illinois EPA that includes a declaration that the source is exempt, as well as

. calculations which demonstrate that combined emissions ofVOM from cleaning

operations at the source never equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (IS Ibs/day). SR at 17;

see Prop. 218 at 9 (proposed Section 21 8. I97(e)(I)), Prop. 219 at 9 (proposed

Section 219.1 87(e)(I).

The proposal also requires that "[s]uch sources shall notify the Illinois EPA of any records that

show that the combined emissions of YOM from cleaning operations at the source ever equal or

exceed 6.8 kg/day (l5Ibs/day)." SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 9 (proposed Section 218.197(e)(I),

Prop. 219 at 9 (proposed Section 219.187(e)(I). Originally, the Agency sought to require that

"[s]uch notification shall include calculations showing the daily emissions ofVOM from

cleaning operations at the source for the day(s) in which emissions equaled or exceeded 6.8

kg/day (l5Ibs/day)." Prop. 218 at 9, Prop. 219 at 9. In its first motion to amend, the Agency

responded to comment from industry representatives by proposing to remove this requirement

that a source provide calculations showing an exceedance. Mot. Amend I at 2 (~3).

In proposed subsection (e)(2), the Agency seeks to require subject sources to submit a

certification "[b]y April I, 20II, or upon initial start-up ofthe sourcc, whichever is later. ..."

Prop. 218 at 10 (proposed Section 21 8.1 87(e)(2)(A)), Prop. 219 at 9-10 (proposed Section

219.1 87(e)(2)(A»; but see SR at 17 (indicating deadline ofMay I, 2010). The original proposal

required that the certification include

I) a declaration that all subject cleaning operations are in compliance with the

requirements ofthis Section; 2) identification of each subject cleaning operation

and each VOM-eontaining cleaning solution used in such operation; 3) the

limitation with which each subject cleaning operation will comply, and if

complying with the emissions control system requirement, what type of emissions
17

control system will be used; 4) initial documentation that, cach subject cleaning

operation will comply with the applicable limitation; 5) identification ofthe

method that will be used to demonstratc continuing compliance with the

applicable limitations; 6) a description ofthe practices and procedures that the

source will follow to ensure compliance with the limitations of Section

218/219.187(d); and 7) a description of each cleaning operation exempt pursuant

to Section 218/219.187(a)(2), if any, and a listing ofthe emission unites) on which

thc exempt cleaning operation is perfonned. SR at 17-18; see Prop. 218 at 9-10

(proposed Section 218.187(e)(2)), Prop. 219 at 9-10 (proposed Section

219.187(e)(2)).

In its first motion to amend, the Agency responded to commcnt from industry representatives by

proposing to delete "the requirement that a subject source certify the limitation with which each

subject cleaning operation will comply." Mot. Amend I at 2-3 ('14); see Prop. 218 at 10

(proposed Section 218.187(e)(2)(A)(iii), Prop. 219 at 10 (proposcd Section 219.187(e)(2)(A)(iii);

see also Tr.1 at 18-19.

In proposed subsection (e)(2)(B), the Agcncy seeks to require that subject sources, "[a]t

least 30 days before changing the method of compliance betwccn subsection (b)(I), (b)(2), and

(b)(3) ofthis Section, notify the Agency in writing ofsuch change." Prop. 218 at 10 (proposed

Section 218.187(e)(2)(B), Prop. 219 at 10 (proposed Section 219.187(e)(2)(B). In its first

motion to amend, the Agency responded to comment from industry representatives by proposing

to delete "the requirement that a source notify the Illinois EPA at least 30 days in advance of

changing its method of compliance between the YOM content limitation and vapor pressure

limitation." Mot. Amend I at 2-3 (~4).

In subsection (e)(3), the Agency proposcs recordkeeping provisions for sources

complying with the YOM content limitations undcr subsection (b)(I). SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at

11-12 (proposed Section 21 8.1 87(e)(3)), Prop. 219 at 10-12 (proposed Section 219.187(e)(3)).

In subsection (e)(4), the Agency proposes recordkeeping "provisions for sources complying with

the YOM composite partial vapor pressure limitations in subsection (b)(2)...." SR at 18; see

Prop. 218 at 12 (proposed Scction 218.187(e)(4)), Prop. 219 at 12 (proposcd Section

219.187(e)(4)). In subsection (e)(5), the Agency proposes recordkeeping "provisions for sources

complying with the emissions control system requirements in subsection (b)(3)...." SR at 18;

see Prop. 218 at 12-14 (proposed Section 218.187(e)(5)), Prop. 219 at 12-14 (proposed Section

219.187(e)(5)).

In subsection (e)(6), the Agency proposes that

[a]1I sources subject to the requirements ofsubsection (b) [Material and Control

Requirements] and (d) [Operating Requirements] ofthis Section shall notify the

Agency of any violation ofsubscctions (b) or (d) by providing a description ofthe

violation and copies of records documenting such violation to the Agency within

30 days following the occurrence ofthe violation. Prop. 218 at 14 (proposed

Section 21 8.1 87(e)(6)), Prop. 219 at 14 (proposed Section 219.187(e)(6)); see SR

at 18.
18

In subsection (e)(7), the Agency proposes that "[a]1I records required by this subsection

(e) shall be retained by the source for at least three years and shall be made available to the

Agency upon request." Prop. 218 at 14 (proposed Section 21 8.1 87(e)(7)), Prop. 219 at 14

(proposed Section 219.1 87(e)(7)); see SR at 18.

Subsection (0. In subsection (I), the Agency proposes to establish monitoring

requirements applicable to sources demonstrating compliance with emissions control systems.

SR at 18. Subsection (I)(l) establishes requirements applicable to sources employing an

afterburner or carbon adsorber to demonstrate compliance. Prop. 218 at 14 (proposed Section

218.187(1)(1 )), Prop. 219 at 14 (proposed Section 219.187(1)(1 )). Subsection (1)(2) addresses

emissions control systems other an afterburner or carbon adsorber. Prop. 218 at 15 (proposed

Section 217.187(1)(2)), Prop. 219 at 14 (proposed Section 219.187(1)(2)).

Subsectioll (gl. In subsection (g), the Agency proposes to establish "requirements

regarding testing to demonstrate compliance with Section 218/219.187." SR at 19; see Prop. 218

at 15-17 (proposed Section 218.187(g)), Prop. 219 at 15-17 (proposed Section 219.187(g)). In

itsfirst motion to amend, the Agency proposed to amend this subsection "by clarifying when

testing pursuant to such Section shall be performed." Mot. Amend I at 3-4 (~5).

Subpart F: Coating Operations

Existing Subparts F addresses YOM emissions from various coating operations. See 35

Ill. Adm. Code 218.204-217, 219.204-217. Forthese two subparts, the Agency proposes a

number of amendments, which largely address emission from flat wood paneling coating

operations. See Prop. 218 at 17-57, Prop. 219 at 17-55.

Introduction. The Agency cites the CTG to state that "[fllat wood paneling products arc

used in construction and can be classified as three main product types: decorative interior

panels, exterior siding, and tileboard." TSD at 6 (§2.5), citing Control Techniques Guidelines

for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standard, September 2006. The Agency states that "[d]ecorative interior

panels are often embossed and usually grooved, having more decorative coating requirements

than many other products." TSD at 6. For these panels, the Agency indicates that "[s]ubstrates

include hardwood, plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board." Jd.

With regard to exterior siding, the Agency states that it "may be coated at the production

facility or on-site." TSD at 6. The Agency indicates that on-site coating "is not subject to this

proposed regulation." Id. The Agency further states that, in addition to siding, "[e]xterior trim is

also generally manufactured at the same production facility and coated with the same coatings."

In the classification, the Agency lists substrates including solid wood, hardboard, and

waferboard. Id. With regard to tileboard, the Agency indicates that it "is used on high-moisture

areas such as kitchens and bathrooms, and is considered a premium interior wall paneling." TSD

at 6. The Agency states that "[t]ileboard meets the specifications for Class I hardboard according

to the American National Standards Institute." Jd.
19

The Agency states that producers coat flat wood paneling in order "to provide protection

from the environment, modify the surface, and present a desired appearance." TSD at 6. The

Agency cites the CTG to state that

a typical flat wood coating facility applies stains and varnishes to natural plywood

panels used for wall coverings. Other plants print wood grain patterns on particle

board panels that were first undercoated with an opaque coating to mask the

original surface. Coatings applied to flat wood surfaces include fillers, sealers,

'groove' coats, primers, stains, basecoats, inks and topcoats. TSD at 6, citing

Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard,

September 2006.

Addressing methods and techniques, the Agency cites the CTG to state that coating line

processes typically begin "with mechanical alterations of the substrate (filing ofholes, cutting of

grooves, sanding, etc.)... TSD at 7, citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood

Paneling Coatings, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standard, September 2006. Following this step,

[m]ost coatings are applied by direct roll coating. Filler is usually applied by

reverse rol1 coating. The offset rotogravure process is used where the coaling and

printing operation requires precision printing techniques. Other coating methods

include spray techniques, brush coating and curtain coating. A typical flat wood

paneling coating line includes a succession of coating operations. Each individual

operation consists ofthe application of one or more coatings fol1owed by a heated

oven to cure the coatings. TSD at 7, citing Control Techniques Guidelines for

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standard, September 2006.

The Agency states that, during these operations, "YOM emissions occur primarily during the

coating process as the coatings dry and cure, but also as coatings are applied, and during mixture

before application." TSD at 7.

Current RegUlations. The Agency states that "[t]here are currently no specific Illinois

regulations covering flat wood paneling coating operations." TSD at 17 (§5.5), Bloomberg Test.

at 7. The Agency argues that these operations would be addressed by regulations applicable to

"Other Emission Units" (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980-988, 219.980-988) and possibly by

regulations applicable to wood furniture coating (see 35 Il1. Adm. Code 218.204(1), 219.204(1)),

"depending on whether the operations fell into the definition related to that process." TSD at 17;

see Bloomberg Test. at 7.

Summary of Proposed Amendments'to Subpart F. The Agency states that its

proposed amendments to Subpart F "will add coating YOM requirements and work practice

requirements for both coatings and associated cleaning operations." TSD at 17; see Prop. 218 at

17-57, Prop. 219 at 17-55, SR at 7-8. Although the Agency notes the option of employing addon emission controls, it adds that "the flat wood paneling coating category will require an overall
20

control of 90 percent rather than the 81 percent overall control required for existing coating

categories." TSD at 18. The Agency claims that "[t]he work practice requirements include

several that are already required for wood furniture coaters, which have been accomplished

without any problems known to the Agency." Id.; see Bloomberg Test. at 7. The Agency

characterizes as "common sense" such requirements as "minimizing spills ofVOM-containing

materials, minimizing YOM emissions during cleaning, and closing mixing vessels except when

they are in use." !d.

The Board below summarizes on a section-by-section basis each ofthe Agency's

proposed amendments to Subpart F.

Section 218/219.204: Emission Limitations. Existing Section 218/219.204 establishes

emission limitations based upon YOM content for various categories of coating lines. 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 218.204, 219.204. The Board below separately summarizes the Agency's proposed

amendments to these provisions. See Prop. 218 at 17-27, Prop. 219 at 17-26.

Subsection Ccl. Existing subsection (c), which provides emission limitations applicable

to paper coating lines, includes a note stating in pertinent part that "[t]he paper coating limitation

shall not apply to any owner or operator of any paper coating line on which flexographic or

rotogravure printing is performed ifthe paper coating line complies with the emissions limitation

in Section 218.401 ofthis Part." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(c), 219.204(c). The Agency

proposes to amend this subsection by providing that the limitation also "shall not apply to any

owner or operator of a paper coating line on which lithographic or letterpress printing is

performed ifthe paper coating line complies with the applicable emissions limitations in Subpart

H ofthis Part." SR at 19; see 35 I1l. Adm. Code 218.401-411, 219.401-411 (Subparts H), Prop.

218 at 19, Prop. 219 at 19.

Subsection Col/Co). The Agency proposes to add a new subsection (p) to Section 218.204

and a new subsection (0) to Section 219.204, both of "which restrict the YOM content offlat

wood paneling coatings to 0.25 kg VOM/l coatings or 0.35 kg VOMII solids or less. SR at 19;

see Prop. 218 at 27, Prop. 219 at 26.

Section 218/219.205: Daily-Weighted Average Limitations. Existing Section

218/219.205 contains provisions for daily-weighted average limitations on YOM content. 35 m.

Adm. Code 218.105, 219.105. The Agency proposes to amend subsection (a) "to include flat

wood paneling coating lines in the daily-weighted averaging alternative." SR at 19; see Prop.

218 at 28, Prop. 219 at 26-27.

Section 218/219.207: Alternative Emission Limitations. Existing Section 218/219.207

contains provisions for alternative emission limitations. 35 ll1. Adm. Code 218.107,219.1 07.

The Board below separately summarizes the Agency's proposed amendments to these

provisions. See Prop. 218 at 33-37, Prop. 219 at 31-36.

Subsection Cal. The Agency proposes to amend this subsection to include flat wood

paneling coating lines as a source category eligible for the alternative emission limitations

option. SR at 19; see Prop. 218 at 33, Prop. 219 at 31-32.
21

Subsection Oli. The Agency proposes to amend Section 218.207(h)( 1) in order to correct

the formatting of an equation pertaining to emissions from can coating lines. SR at 20; see Prop.

218at36.

Subsection (l), (kl. The Agency proposes to add a subsection (I) to Section 218.207 and

a subsection (k) to Section 219.207 in order to include flat wood paneling coating lines in the

alternative emissions limitations option. SR at 19; see Prop. 218 at 37, Prop. 219 at 35-36.

These proposed subsections "provide that a flat wood paneling coating line may utilize a capture

system and control device ifsuch system provides at least 90 reduction in the overall emissions

ofVOM from the coating line or the owner or operator ofthe flat wood paneling coating line

complies with all requirements set forth in subsection (b)(2) ofthis Section." SR at 19; see Prop.

218 at37, Prop. 219 at 35-36.

Section 218/219.210: Compliance Schedule. Section 218/219.210 establishes

compliance schedules applicable to various coating lines. 35 I1l. Adm. Code 218.210, 219.210.

The Agency proposed to amend these sections by adding a subsection (g) providing that, on and

after a date consistent with Section 218/219.206, sources subject to the flat wood paneling

coating emission limitations shall comply with the applicable provisions in Subpart F." SR at

20; see Prop. 218 at 39, Prop. 219 at 37.

Section 218.211/219.211: Recordkeellinl! and Reporting. Existing Section

218/219.211 contains various recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

218.111,219.111. The Board below separately summarizes the Agency's proposed amendments

to these provisions. See Prop. 218 at 39-50, Prop. 219 at 37-48.

Subsections (eI, Cdl. The Agency proposes to amend these subsections "to provide that,

for flat wood paneling coating lines, YOM content information shall be maintained and/or

reported in terms ofweight ofVOM per volume of coatings or solids, as applicable, as applied

each day on each coating line." SR at 20; see Prop. 218 at 42-46, Prop. 219 at 40-44. The

Agency also proposed to correct a spelling error in Section 218:21 I(c)(3)(A). SR at 20; see

Prop. 218 at 43 ..

Subsection (el. The Agency proposes to amend this subsection "to provide that flat

wood paneling coating lines complying pursuant to Section 218/219.207 [Altemative Emissions

Limitations] shall comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in

subsection (e)." SR at 20; see Prop. 218 at 46-47, Prop. 219 at 44-45.

Subsection (gl. Thc Agency proposes to add a new subsection (g) establishing

"recordkeeping and reporting requirements for flat wood paneling coating lines subject to the

work practice requirements set forth in Section 218/219.217." SR at 20; see Prop. 218 at 49-50,

Prop. 219 at 48.

Section 218.212/219.212: Cross-Line Averaging to Establish Compliance for

Coating Lines. Existing Section 218/219.212 contains provision for averaging across specified

coating lines in order to establish compliance. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.212, 219.212. The
22

Agency proposes to amend subsection (a) "to provide that the cross-line averaging alternative is

not available to flat wood paneling coating lines." SR at 21; see Prop. 218 at 50-54, Prop. 219 at

48-53.

Section 218.217/219.217: Wood Furniture Coating Work Practice Standards.

Existing Section 218/219.217 establishes various work practice standards for wood furniture

coating operations. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.217, 219.217. The Agency first proposes to change

the title ofthis Section to "Wood Furniture Coating and Flat Wood Paneling Coating Work

Practice Standards." SR at 21; see Prop. 218 at 54, Prop. 219 at 53. The Board below separately

summarizes the Agency's proposed amendments to the provisions of these sections. See Prop.

218 at 54-57, Prop. 219 at 53-55

Subsectio/l (cl. In this re-designated subsection, the Agency proposes an amendment

providing that "the flat wood paneling coating lines are subject to the existing cleaning and work

practice requirements in this Section." SR at 21; see Prop. 218 at 55-56, Prop. 219 at 54.

Subsectio/l (dl. The Agency proposes a new subsection "adding additional cleaning and

storage requirements for flat wood paneling coating lines...." SR at 21; see Prop. 218 at 56,

Prop. 219 at 54-55. Specifically, the Agency proposes to require "that such coating lines

minimize spills ofYOM containing coatings, thinners, and cleaners, minimize emissions of

YOM during cleanin·g activities, and keep mixing vessels which contain YOM coatings and other

materials closed except when specifically in use." SR at 21; see Prop. 218 at 56, Prop. 219 at 54.

Subpart H: Printing and Publishing

Existing Subparts H address YOM emissions from various printing and publishing

sources. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401-4II, 219.401-411. For these two subparts, the Agency

proposes a number of amendments and the addition ofnew subsections addressing letterpress

printing lines. See Prop. 218 at 57-129, Prop. 219 at 55-130. l11e Board separately addresses

these amendments and additions in the following subsections of this opinion.

Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing.

I/ltroductiO/l. The Agency states that "[f1lcxible packaging means any package or part of

a package, the shape ofwhich can be readily changed." TSD at 4. The Agency further states

that this packaging "includes, but is not limited to, bags, pouches, liners, and wraps utilizing

paper, plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coatcd paper or film, or any combination of

these matcrials." !d. The Agency also indicates that "[s]hrink-wrap labels or wrappers (but not

sclf-adhesive labels) printed on or in-line with a flexible packaging printing press are also

considered to be flexible packaging." !d. The Agency states, however, that the following items

are not flexible packaging: "cartons, gift wraps, hot stamp foils, wall coverings, vinyl products,

decorative laminates, floor coverings, or tissue products." !d. at 5.

The Agency characterizes rotogravure printing as using "an image etched or engraved

into a plate or cylinder." TSD at 5. The Agency states that "[i]nks, coatings, and adhesives may

be applied to a substrate through the rotogravure process." !d. The Agency describes
23

flexographic printing as the use of "an image raised above the level ofthe printing plate, with the

image carrier made oflUbber or othcr flexible material." ld. The Agency distinguishes the two

in part by stating that "[fjlexographic printing is better suited to short production IUns, in contrast

to rotogravure printing, which is more useful for long runs." Id. The Agency claims that "YOM

emissions for both typcs of printing originate from the drying ofinks as well as solvents uscd to

clean presses and other components." Id.

The Agency cites the CTG to state that "the use of waterbased inks is increasing." TSD

at 5, citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September

2006. However, the Agency also notes that "[m]any facilities use hundreds of different inks to

print various custom colors required by their packaging customers. Low [YOM] inks, coatings,

and adhesives may not be available to mcct all of the perfomlance requirements." TSD at 5,

citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Septcmber

2006.

The Agency thus states that "most YOM control for flexible package printing is achieved

through the use of add-on control devices." TSD at 5. The Agency indicates that most ofthe

YOM emitted through these processes "is captured through evaporation in a dryer, along with

hoods and other collection devices for solvent that evaporates elsewhere in the printing process."

!d. The Agency claims that "[0]lder presses frequently do not allow for the same level of capture

as newer installations do." Id. Howevcr, the Agency cites the CTG to claim that '''[t]here have

been significant improvements in capture efficiency offlexographic presses and rotogravure

presses' since USEPA's most recent review ofthose operations." Id., citing Control Techniques

Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006. The Agency further cites the

CTG to state that, "[s]ince 1990, many vendors have guaranteed capture efficiency of 85 to 90

percent without use of a permanent total enclosure." TSD at 5, citing Control Techniques

Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006. The Agency argues that control

devices can now attain control efficiencies of at least 95 percent." TSD at 5, citing Control

Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006.

Currellt Regulatiolls. The Agency states that Illinois regulations currently "cover all

flexographic, packaging rotogravure, and publication rotogravure printing." TSD at 4, 17 (§§2.3,

5.3). The Agency further states that these different printing operations have identical YOM

content limits on ink but differ in their add-on control requirements: "flexographic printers are

required to get 60 percent overall YOM reduction, packaging rotogravure are required to get 65

percent overall reductions, and publication rotogravure must achieve 75 percent overall

reduction." Id.; see 35111. Adm. Code 218.401(a)(l), (c)(4), 2l9.401(a)(1), (c)(4).

Summary o(Proposed Amelldmellts Addressillg Flexograpllic amI Rotogravure

Prilltillg. The Agency states that its proposal "separates out flexible packaging printing from the

existing flexographic and rotogravure regulations." TSD at 17; see id. at 4, Bloomberg Test. at
24

5; see generally Prop. 218 at 57-76, Prop. 219 at 55-75. The Agency argues that "any

flexographic or rotogravure operation that is not printing on flexible packaging will not see a

change to the applicable regulations." Jd. The Agency indicates, however, that "[s]ources that

print on flexible packaging will need to meet either a tightened ink YOM content or add-on

control requirement." Jd.; see SR at 8. The Agency states that the required efficiency ofthe addon control "will depend on both the date of construction, at the source, ofthe press and the

control device." TSD at 17; see Bloomberg Test. at 6. The Agency claims that these factors

reflect "that presses and control devices already installed at the source might not have been

designed to obtain capture and control efficiencies as high as are currently obtainable." TSD at

17. The Agency thus suggests that sources should not need to upgradc cxisting control devices.

Tr.latI5-16.

The Agency states that "[t]he proposed regulations also require that printing lines that

meet the CTG's prescribed applicability threshold comply with work practice requirements for

cleaning materials." TSD at 5; see Bloomberg Test. at 6. The Agency further states that these

practices include "keeping solvent containers closed except when filling, draining or conducting

cleaning operations, keeping used shop towels in closed containers, and conveying cleaning

materials from one location to another in closed containers or pipes." TSD at 17, citing Control

Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Packaging Printing, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006. The Agency stresses

that "the applicability level for such work practices in much lower, at 15 pounds per day, as

compared to the applicability thresholds of 25 tons per year potential to emit or 100 tons per year

maximum theoretical emissions for the remainder ofthe rule." Bloomberg Test. at 6.

Sectioll 218.401/219.401: Flexograpltic alld Rotogravure Prilltillg. Existing Section

218/219.401 addresses YOM emissions from flexographic and rotogravure printing. 35 111.

Adm. Code 218.401,219.401. The Agency proposes to amend this provision "to separate the

requirements that are applicable prior to the new compliance date from those applicable after thc

new compliance date. SR at 21. Below, the Board summarizes those proposed amendments on a

subsection-by-subsection basis.

Subsectioll (a). The Agency proposes to amend this subsection to require that, "on and

after May I, 20 I0, owners and operators offlexographic and rotogravure printing lines that do

not print flexible packaging and that are complying with subsection (a) shall comply with the

existing YOM regulations." SR at 21; see Prop. 218 at 57, Prop. 219 at 55-56. The Agency

seeks also to require that "[o]wners and operators offlexographic and rotogra~re printing lines

that print flexible packaging or that print flexible packaging and non-flexible packaging on the

same line shall restrict the YOM content of coatings and inks to .8 kg YOM/kg solids applied or

.16 kg VOM/kg materials applied or less." SR at 21-22; see Prop. i 18 at 57-58, Prop. 219 at 56.

Subsectioll (b). The Agency proposes to amend this subsection to require that, "on and

after May 1,2010, owners and operators offlexographic and rotogravure printing lines that do

not print flexible packaging and that are complying with subsection (b) shall comply with the

existing weighted averaging requirements." SR at 22; see Prop. 218 at 58-62, Prop. 219 at 56-

. 61. The Agency also seeks to require that
25

[0]wncrs and operators offlexographic and rotogravure printing lines that print

flexible packaging, or that print flexible packaging and non-flcxible packaging on

the same line, and that are complying with subsection (b) shall not apply coatings

or inks on the subject printing line unless the wcighted averagc, by weight, YOM

content of all coatings and inks as applied each day on the subject printing line

docs not exceed the YOM limitations specified in the amendments to subsection

(a) ofthis Scction, SR at 22; see Prop, 218 at 58-62, Prop, 219 at 56-61.

The Agency also proposes specific "equations for calculating the weighted average YOM

content for such lines," SR at 22; see Prop, 218 at 58-62, Prop, 219 at 56-61. Finally, thc

Agency proposes a number of non-substantive corrcctions to the cxisting language, See SR at

22,

Subsection (c), The Agency proposes to amcnd this subsection to require that, "on and

after May 1,20I0, the owner or operator of a flexographic or rotogravure printing line that does

not print flexible packaging and that is complying with subsection (c) shall equip the printing

line with a capture systcm and control dcvice that complies with the existing control efficiency

requirements," SR at 22; see Prop, 218 at 62-65, Prop, 219 at 61-64, The Agency seeks also to

amend this provision by requiring that "[t]he owner or operator of a flcxographic or rotogravure

printing line that prints flexible packaging shall equip the printing line with a capture system and

control device that provides an overall reduction in YOM emissions of 65-80 percent, depending

on the dates that the printing line and control system were first constructed at the subject source,"

SR at 22-23; see Prop, 218 at 62-65, Prop, 219 at 61-64, The Agency also proposes to require

that "[t]he owner or operator of a flexographic or rotogravure printing line that prints flexible

packaging and non-flexible packaging on the same line shall comply with the overall control

efficiency requirements set forth in either [proposed] subsection (c)(l)(D) or [proposed]

subsection (c)(3) ofthis Section, whichever is more stringent." SR at 23, see Prop, 218 at 62-65,

Prop, 219 at 61-64,

The Agency also proposes to amend subsection (c)(6) "to specify the printing lines that

are required to perfonn testing pursuant to this subsection," SR at 23; see Prop, 218 at 64-65,

Prop, 219 at 63-64,

Subsection (d), The Agency seeks to add a new subsection (d), The Agcncy proposes

"that YOM-containing cleaning materials associated with flexographic or rotogravure printing

lines that print flexible packaging or print flexible packaging and non-flexible packaging on the

same line shall be kept, stored, and disposed ofin closed containers, and conveycd from one

location to another in closed containers or pipes," SR at 23; see Prop, 218 at 65, Prop, 219 at 64,

Section 218.402/219.402: Applicability. Existing Section 218/219,402 addresses

applicability of various requirements to flexographic and rotogravure printing lines. 35 III. Adm.

Code 218.402, 219.402. The Agency proposes to add this section a subsection (b) providing that

the limitations of Section 218/219.401 (d) apply to all flexographic and

rotogravure printing lines that print flcxible packaging or print flexible packaging

and non-flexible packaging on the same line at sources where the combined
26

emissions ofVOM from all flexographie and rotogravure printing lines total 6.8

kg/day (15 Ibs/day) or more, in the absence of air pollution control equipment.

SR at 23; see Prop. 218 at 66, Prop. 219 at 65.

Sectioll 218.403/219.403: Compliallce Schedule. Existing Section 218/219.403

establishes a compliance schedule for owners and operators of various flexographic and

rotogravure printing lines. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.403, 219.403. The Agency proposes to add

subsections (e), (I), and (g) to "establish May 1,2010, as the compliance date for the

requirements set forth in the proposed amendments." SR at 23; see Prop. 218 at 67-68, Prop.

219 at 66.

Sectioll 218.404/219.404: Recordkeepillf! alld Reportillg. Existing Section 218/219.404

addresses recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to various printing lines. 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 218.404, 219.404. The Board below separately addresses those amendments on a

subseciion-by-subsection basis.

Subsectioll (b). The Agency proposes to amend the section to refer to "recordkeeping

and reporting compliance dates for printing lines subject to the limitations in the proposed

amendments to Section 218/219.401." SR at 24; see Prop. 218 at 68-70, Prop. 219 at 67-69. In

its first motion to amend, the Agency responded to a request from industry representatives by

proposing to amend subsection (b)(1 )(B) "by deleting references to instruments by which

owner[s] or operators may calculate the volume or weight of coatings and inks as applied each

day on subject coating lines, as such instrumentation is not currently available to sources." Mot.

Amend I at 4-5 ("6); see Tr.1 at 19-20.

Subsectiolls (c), (d). The Agency proposes to amend subsections (c) and (d) "to clarify

that the owner or operator of a printing line subject to the requirements in Section

2181219.401 (a)(2)(B)or (b)(3) shall certify in accordance with subsection (c)(1) or (d)(l), as

applicable, even ifthe owner or operator ofsuch line submitted a certification prior to January I,

2010." SR at 24; see Prop. 218 at 70-73, Prop. 219 at 69-72. In its first motion to amend, the

Agency responded to a request from industry representatives by proposing to amend subsection

(d)(1)(D) "by deleting references to instruments by which owner[s] or operators may calculate

the volume or weight of coatings and inks as applied each day on subject coating lines, as such

instrumentation is not currently available to sources." Mot. Amend I at 4-5 (~6); see Tr.l at 19-

20.

Subsectioll (e). The Agency proposes to amend subsection (e) "to provide that ifthe

owner or operator of a printing line is not required to perform testing of a capture system and

control device pursuant to Section 218/219/401 (c)(6), the owner or operator shall submit a

certification to the Agency that includes specified information" listed in proposed subsection

(e)(1)(B). SR at 24; see Prop. 218 at 73-74, Prop. 219 at 72-73.

TIle Agency also proposes to add a new subsection (e)(4) providing that, "by May I,

2010, owners or operators ofprinting lines subject to Section 21 8/2 I9.401(c)(3) or (c)(4) shall

submit to the Illinois EPA records documenting the dates each subject printing line and control

device were constructed at the subject source." SR at 24; see Prop. 218 at 75, Prop. 219 at 74.
27

Subsectioll (f). The Agency also proposes to add a new subsection (I) to establish

"recordkeeping and reporting requirements for any owner or operator of a flexographic or

rotogravure printing line that prints flexible packaging or prints flexible packaging and nonflexible packaging on the same line and which is exempt from the limitations of Section

218/219.401 (d) because of the criteria in Section 218/219.402(b)." SR at 24; see Prop. 218 at

75-76, Prop. 219 at 74-75. In its first motion to amend, the Agency responds to comment from

industry representatives by proposing to remove from subsection (1)(2) "the requirement that a

source include in its notification to the Il1inois EPA calculations showing an exceedance ofthe

applicability threshold." Mol. Amend I at 5-6 (~7).

Subsectioll (g). The Agency also proposes to add a new subsection (g) to establish

"recordkeeping and reporting requirements for any owner or operator of a printing line subject to

the limitations of Section 218/219.40 I(d)," which addresses YOM-containing cleaning materials.

SR at 24-25; see Prop. 218 at 76, Prop. 219 at 75.

Subsectioll ("). The Agency also proposes to add a new subsection (h) providing in its

entirety that "[a]1I records required by subsections (I) and (g) shall be retained for at least three

years and shall be made available to the Agency upon request" Prop. 218 at 76, Prop. 219 at 75;

see SR at 25.

Lithographic Printing.

IlItroductiO/l. The Agency states that "[I]ithography is a planographic method of

printing; that is, the printing and nonprinting areas are essentially in the same plane on the

surface of a thin 'lithographic' plate." TSD at 3. The Agency further states that the two areas

are distinguished chemically by rendering the image area water repellent and the nonimage area

water receptive." Id.

The Agency describes the catcgory of offset lithographic printing: "ink is transferred

from the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered 'intermediate' or 'blanket' cylinder and then to

the substrate." TSD at 3. The Agency states that this "[t]ransfer ofthe ink from the lithographic

plate to the blanket cYlinder, rather than directly to the substrate, is the offset characteristic of

this type ofprinting." /d.

The Agency states that offset lithographic printing itself can be categorized by the

manner in which the substrate is fed to the press. TSD at 3. The Agency indicates that, "[i]n

sheet-fed printing, individual sheets ofpaper or other substrate are fed to the press. In web

printing, continuous rolls ofpaper are fed to the press and the paper is cut to size after it is

printed." ld.

The Agency states that pigments, vehicles, binders, and other additives comprise

lithographic inks. TSD at 3. The Agency further states that pigments include both organic and

inorganic materials. Id. The Agency indicates that "[l]ithographic inks may be heatset, where

heat is required to set the ink, or non-heatset, where the inks are set by absorption into the

substrate by oxidation or other methods not requiring added heat" ld. The Agency claims that
28

"[h]eatset inks may contain up to 45 percent VOMs." Jd. The Agency also lists the

characteristics ofnon-heatset inks: higher boiling points, less pastiness, and usually less than 35

percent YOM content. ld. The Agency also states that "[m]ost non-heatset inks used in sheetfed printing are below 25 percent VOM." Jd.

The Agency states that printing operations apply a fountain solution to a lithographic

plate to render nonimage areas unreceptive to ink. TSD at 3. The Agency further states that,

"[s]ince printing inks are oil-based and oil is repelled by water, the fountain solution is waterbased." ld. The Agency indicates that·these fountain solutions also contain "small quantities of

gum arabic or synthetic resins, acids, and buffer slats to maintain the pH ofthe solution, and a

wetting agcnt or 'dampening aid' to enhance the spreadability ofthe fountain solution across the

print plate." ld. The Agency states that the dampening aid reduces the surface tension of water

and increases viscosity. Jd.

The Agency states that, since the 1950s, isopropyl alcohol, a YOM, "has been used as the

primary dampening aid." TSD at 3. The Agency further states that "[c]thanol and normal propyl

alcohol have also been used in this capacity" ld. The Agency indicates that, "[b]efore the

1980s, concentration of alcohol in the fountain solution could range from 0 to 35 percent or

higher, with most presses using between 15 and 20 percent." ld. The Agency argues that

printers have since reduced the alcohol content offountain solution and have "often replaced

alcohol completely with other dampening aids." !d. at 4.

The Agency states that printers use cleaning solutions "to removc cxcess printing inks,

oils, and papcr components from press equipment" and also "to wash the blankets, the rollers, the

outside ofthe presses, and to remove excess ink residue between color changcs." TSD at 4. The

Agency further states that these "solutions are petroleum-based solvents, often mixed with

detergent and/or water." Jd. The Agency indicates that "[t]he cleaning compound may be a

single solvent, such as kerosene, or a combination ofsolvents." ld.

Currellt Regulatiolls. The Agency states that Illinois now "has regulations covering all

types oflithographic printing in the NAAs, with an applicability level of 100 PPD (calculated

monthly). In addition, there is a secondary applicability level of 100 tons per year ofmaximum

theoretical emissions for heatset web lithographic printing, which was carried over from the

previous rule." TSD at 15.

Regarding fountain solution, the Agency states that current regulations applicable to

heatset web presses in the two NAAs "require that subject sources use no more than 1.6 percent

alcohol, or.3 percent ifthe fountain solution is refrigerated." TSD at 4; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code

218.407(a)(I)(A)(i), (ii); 219.407(a)(I)(A)(i), (ii). The Agency further states that "fountain

solution using only alcohol substitutes may use up to 5 percent VOM." TSD at 4; see 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 218.407(a)(1 )(A)(iii), 219.407(a)(1 )(A)(iii). The Agency also states that "[n]onheatset web presses cannot usc any alcohol and are subject to the same 5 percent YOM limit."

TSD at 4; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407(a)(2), 219.407(a)(2). Finally, "[s]heet-fed presses are

limited to 5 percent YOM content or 8.5 percent ifthe solution is refrigerated." TSD at 4; see 35

Ill. Adm. Code 218.407(a)(3), 219.407(a)(3).
29

Summary ofProposed Amelldmellts Addressing Lithographic Prilltillg. The Agency

states that its "proposal does not reduce the applicability threshold for add-on control devices

used by heatset presses." TSD at 15. The Agency thus argues that "no new lithographic printing

units will need to add controls." fri.; see SR at 8. The Agency indicates, however, that "new

control devices on heatset web lithographic presses will need to meet a 95 percent control

efficiency instead ofthe current 90 percent limit." TSD at 15; see Bloomberg Test. at 3. The

Agency exprcsscs the beliefthat "control devices in existence today can meet the 95 percent

limit, but at the request ofprinting industry representatives, the Agency has agreed not to ask

existing sources to meet the higher control efficiency." TSD at 15; see TLI at 14-15.

The Agency states that its proposal establishes "a new applicability threshold of 15 PPD

for fountain solution and cleaning solution requirements for all lithographic printing operations."

TSD at 15; see Bloomberg Test. at 3. The Agency further states that "[t]he requirements are the

same as are already present in the Illinois regulations, other than a correction to the fountain

solution limits that changes their measurement from 'by volume' to 'by weight.'" Jd.

The Agency emphasizes that "sources between 15 and 100 PPD will be able to take

advantage ofseveral new exclusions pertaining to fountain and cleaning solutions" TSD at 15.

The Agency states that "[s]heet-fcd presses that print substrates no larger than II inches by 17

inches and any lithographic press with a fountain solution reservoir ofno larger than one gallon

are not required to comply with the fountain solution requirements." ld.; see Bloomberg Test. at

4. The Agency further states that "sources in this [] 5 to 100 PPD] group will also need to meet

only a 70 percent YOM content limit in cleaning solutions rather than the 30 percent limit that is

applicable to sources over ]00 PPD." TSD at 15. Finally, the Agency also states that "[a]ll such

sources will also be able to use up to I00 gallons of cleaning solution per year that do not meet

either the YOM content or vapor pressure requirements." fri. at 15-16.

The Agency states that, "[b]ecause ofthe new exclusions that apply only between 15 and

100 PPD, even subject sources in this group must continue to calculate emissions to ensure they

do not excecd the 100 PPD thrcshold and lose the exclusions." TSD at 16. The Agency furthcr

states that "[s]ources may opt out ofthe exclusions ifthey do not wish to make use of them, and

thus would not need to calculate emissions in this fashion." fri.; see Bloomberg Test. at 4.

The Agency states that "[s]ources which fall below one ofthe applicability limits, and are

thus exempt from one or more control requirements, must certify this exemption to the Illinois

EPA through calculations showing that their emissions will not exceed the applicable YOM

threshold." TSD at 16. The Agency further states that "[t]hese calculations must include all

YOM emissions, including inks, fountain solution, and cleaning solvents, and are determined on

a monthly basis." fri.

The Agency emphasizes that current regulations recognize "that the substrate retains

some ofthe YOM present in the ink, and this a retention factor of 0.95 is used when calculating

emissions from non-heatset inks, and a factor of 0.20 is used when calculating emissions from

heatset inks." TSD at 16; see Bloomberg Test. at 4. The Agency notes that currcnt regulations

also contain "a factor recognizing that YOM remains on solvent-laden rags that are stored and

disposed of properly." TSD at 16; see Bloomberg Test. at 4. The Agency states that "[t]hese
30

factors continue to be allowed for determination of applicability" TSD at 16, The Agency also

notes that its "proposal adds emission adjustment factors to be used in other situations when not

determining applicability (such as Annual Emissions Reports and permit limits)," lei. The

Agency claims that "[t]hese factors take into account carryover ofVOM from automatic blanket

wash and fountain solutions into the dryer and control device." !d" citing Control Techniques

Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September

2006; see Bloomberg Test. at 5,

Sectioll 218.405/219.405: Lithographic Prilltillg: Applicability. Existing Section

218/2190405 addresses applicability of various provisions to lithographic printing operations, 35

111, Adm, Code 2180405, 2190405, The Board below separately addresses those amendments On a

subsection-by-subsection basis,

Subsectiolls (a), (b). The Agency first proposes "to separate requirements that are

applicable prior to the new compliance date from those applicable after the new compliance

date," SR at 25; see Prop. 218 at 76-79, Prop. 219 at 75-78, The Agency also seeks to delete the

current subsection (a), which establishes "requirements that were only applicable until March 15,

1996, and reformatting/renumbering the remaining subsections accordingly." SR at 25; see

Prop, 218 at 76-79, Prop, 219 at 75-78,

Subsectioll (c). The Agency proposes to add a new subsection (c)(1) providing that, on

and after May 1,2010,

the requirements in Section 21 8/2 I9A07(a)(1)(B) through (a)(1)(E) and

2 I8/2 I9A07(b) and all applicable provisions in Sections 218/2190408 through

2 I8/219All ofthis Subpart shall apply to all owners or operators of heatset web

offset lithographic printing line(s) if the combined emissions ofVOM from all

lithographic printing line(s) at the source (including solvents used for cleanup

operations associated with the lithographic printing line(s)) ever exceed 45.5

kg/day (100 Ibs/day), before the application of capture systems and control

devices. SR at 25; see Prop. 218 at 78, Prop. 219 at 77, .

The Agency seeks to require in new subsection (e)(2) that, on and after May I, 2010,

Sections 218/2 I9A07(a)(1 )(A), 2181219A07(a)(2) through (a)(5), and all

applicable provision sin Sections 218/2190408 through 218/219041 I, shall apply to

all owners and operators oflithographic printing lines at sources wherc thc

combined emissions of YOM from all lithographic printing lines at the source

(including solvents usc for cleanup operations associated with the lithographic

printing lines) ever total 6.8 kg/day (15 Ibs/day) or more, SR at 25; see Prop, 2 I8

at 78, Prop, 219 at 77,

Finally, the Agency proposed in new subsection (c)(3) that,
31

at sourccs where the combined emissions ofVOM from all lithographic printing

line(s) at the source equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 Ibs/day) but do not exceed

45.5 kg/day (100 Ibs/day), before the application ofcapturc systems and control

devices, certain specified exclusions apply unless the owner or operator ofthe

source certifies that the source will not make use of any such exclusions. SR at

25-26; see Prop. 218 at 78-79, Prop. 219 at 77-78.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency proposed to correct cross-references in Sections

218/219.405(c)(1) and (c)(2) to Section 218/219.408, which the Agency seeks to repeal. Mot.

Amend 1 at 6-7 ('lI8); see Prop. 218 at 89, Prop. 219 at 88-89. Thc Agency states that the crossreferences had been "inadvertently left in the rule." Mot. Amend 1 at 6.

Section 218.406/219.406: Provisions Arriving to Heatset Web Offset Lithographic

Printing Prior to March 15,1996. The Agency states that it seeks to repeal this section, "as it

contains requirements that were applicable prior to March 15, 1996." SR at 26; see Prop. 218 at

79-86, Prop. 219 at 78-85.

Section 218.407/219.407: Emission Limitations and Control Requirements (or

Lithographic Printing Lines On and After Marcl. 15, 1996. Existing Section 218/219.407

establishes various requirements applicable to lithographic printing lines on and after March IS,

1996. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407. The Agency first proposes to amend this section "by

deleting references to the previous compliance date ofMarch IS, 1996, and separating

requirements that are applicable prior to the new compliance date from those applicable after the

new compliance date." SR at 26; see Prop. 218 at 86-89, Prop. 219 at 85-88. The Agency also

proposes to change "the YOM content limitations for fountain solutions from 'by volume' to 'by

weight,' as USEPA has informed that Illinois EPA that this is the appropriate way to measure the

limit." SR at 26; see Prop. 218 at 86-89, Prop. 219 at 85-88.

Subsectioll (a). The Agency specifically proposes to amend subsection (a)(1)(C) to

provide that

on and after May 1, 2010, owners or operators ofsubject heatset web offset

lithographic printing lines shall install and operate an afterburner ... so that YOM

emissions from the press dryer exhaust are reduced by 90-95 percent, by weight,

depending on the date that the afterburner ... was first constructed at the subject

source, or to a maximum afterburner exhaust outlet concentration of 20 ppmv (as

carbon). SR at 26; see Prop. 218 at 87, Prop. 219 at 86.

The Agency also proposes to amend subsection (a)(l)(D) in order "to delete references to

monitoring requirements already set forth in Section 218/219.410." SR at 26; see Prop. 218 at

87, Prop. 219 at 86.

In addition, the Agency seeks to amend subsection (a)(4) to provide that,

on and after May I, 2010, owners or operators of sources that meet the

applicability criteria in Section 218/219.405(c)(3) and do /lot certify pursuant to
32

Section 218/219.41 1(g)(J)(B) that the SOurce will not make use of any ofthe

exclusions in Section 2181219.405(c)(3)'shall not cause or allow the use of a

cleaning solution on any lithographic printing line unless the YOM content ofthe

as-used cleaning solution is less than or equal to 70 percent, by weight, or shall

satisfy the alternative YOM composite partial vapor pressure limitation. SR at

27; see Prop, 218 at 88, Prop. 219 at 87.

The Agency also proposes to amend subsection (a)(5) in order "to specify that the storage and

disposal requirements for cleaning materials apply except when such materials are specifically in

use." SR at 27; see Prop. 218 at 88, Prop. 219 at 87

Subsection (b). The Agency specifically proposcs to amend subsection (b) to provide

that

on and after May 1, 20 I0, owners or operators ofsubject heatset web offset

lithographic printing lines shall install and operate an afterburner or other

approved control device so that YOM emissions from the press dryer exhaust are

reduced by 90-95 percent, by weight, depending on the date that the afterburner or

other control device was first constructed at the subject source, or to a maximum

afterburner exhaust outlet concentration of20 ppmv (as carbon). SR at 26; see

Prop. 218 at 88, Prop. 219 at 87-88.

Section 218.408/219.408: Compliance Schedule (or Lithographic Printing On and

After March 15, 1996. The Agency proposes to repeal this section in its entirety, "as the

pertinent compliance dates are set forth in Section 2181219.405." SR at 27; see Prop. 218 at 89,

Prop. 219 at 88-89; see also Prop. 218 at 76-79, Prop. 219 at 75-78 (proposed Section

218/219.405).

Section 218.409/219.409: Testing (or Lithographic Printing On andAfter March 15,

1996. Existing Section 218/219.409 addresses testing for lithographic printers. 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 218.409, 219.409. The Agency originally proposed to amend this section by "deleting a

reference to the previous compliance date of March 15, 1996 in the title...." SR at 27; see

Prop. 218 at 89, Prop. 219 at 89.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency also proposed amending subsections (a) and (c)

in order to clarify "when testing pursuant to such Section shall be performed." Mot. Amend 1 at

7-8 ('iI9). In the same motion, the Agency also proposed to amend subsection (c) "by correcting

an internal cross-reference." 1d.

Section 218.410/219.410: Monitoring Requirement.• (or Lithographic Printing. The

Agency's original rulemaking proposal did not seek to amend Section 2181219.410, which

addresses monitoring requirements for lithographic printers. See SR at 27, Prop. 218 at 91, Prop.

219 at 91; see also 35 III. Adm. Code 218.410, 219.410. In its first motion to amend, the Agency

responded to a comment from industry representatives by noting "several incorrect internal

cross-references within the current Section 218/219.410." Mot. Amend I at 8 ('ill 0).
33

Accordingly, the Agency "proposes amending subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (e)(1 )(B), and (e)(2) to

correct the cross-references." Id. at 8-14.

Section 218.4I1/219.4II: Recordkeepillg alld Reporting (or Lithographic Prilltill g.

Existing Section 218/219.411 addresses recordkceping and reporting requirements applicable to

lithographic printers. See 35 III. Adm. Code 218.411, 219.411. Generally, the Agency proposes

to amend "this Section by deleting references to the previous compliance date ofMarch 15,

1996, and clarifying the requirements that apply to sources prior to the new compliance date and

those that apply on and after the new compliance date." SR at 27-28; see Prop. 218 at 92-114,

Prop. 219 at 91-114.

Subsectioll (a). Existing subsection (a) addresses lithographic printing lines exempt from

the limitations of Section 218/219.407 on the basis of criteria in Section 218/219.405. See 35 JIl.

Adm. Code 218.4II(a), 219.4II(a). TIle Agency proposes to add to this subsection "the

equation for calculating maximum theoretic emissions ofVOM, which was previously contained

in Section 218/219.406." SR at 28; see Prop. 218 at 93-95, Prop. 219 at 92-94. In its first

motion to amend, the Agency proposes to amend the key to that equation "by deleting reference

to instruments by which owners or operators may calculate the volume ofinks as applied each

day on subject printing lines, as such instrumentation is not currently available to sources." Mot.

Amend I at 14-15 ('111).

Subsectioll (b). The Agency proposes "adding a new subsection (b), which contains

recordkeeping and reporting provisions for printing lines that,are exempt on and after May I,

20 IO...." SR at 28. Proposed subsection (b)(I) specifically addresses printing lines exempt

under Section 218.405(c)(2). In addition to standard recordkeeping and reporting requirements,

the Agency in that provision

proposes an emission adjustment factor to be used when determining YOM

emissions from inks used on lithographic printing line(s) at the source, as well as

an emission adjustment factor to be used when calculating emissions from used

shop towels ifthe YOM composite vapor pressure of each associated cleaning

solution is less than 10 mmHg measured at 20°C (68°F) and the shop towels are

kept in closed containers. SR at 28; see Prop. 218 at 95-100, Prop. 219 at 94-100.

At the request ofindustry representatives, the Agency also proposes in subsection (b)(I )(C) an

alternative to the YOM emissions calculations in subsection (b)(I)(B): "a source may determine

that it emits below 6.8 kg/day (15Ibs/day) ofVOM ifit complies with material use limitations

during each month." SR at 28, Tr.l at 21; see Prop. 218 at 97, Prop. 219 at 96-97. The Agency

seeks to provide that this material use alternative is limited to sources with only single type of

lithographic printing operation. SR at 28; see Prop. 218 at 97, Prop. 219 at 96. The Agency

proposes that, "[i]f a source exceeds the material use limitation in any given month, the source

shall complete emissions calculations pursuant to subsection (b)(1 )(B) within 15 days ofthe end

ofthat month." SR at 28; see Prop. 218 at 97, Prop. 219 at 96. The Agency further proposes that

a source exceeding the limitations for six consecutive months is no longer eligible to rely on the

alternative. SR at 28-29; see Prop. 218 at 97, Prop. 219 at 96-97.
34

In its first motion to amend, the Agency notes that "USEPA previously recommended

that material use thresholds for such lines be conservatively based on the pound per day

applicability threshold." Mot. Amend I at 15 ('il12). The Agency states that "USEPA has now

deternlined that a 90 percent emission equivalency level is acceptable for both lithographic and

letterpress printing operations." ld. The Agency sought to amend subsection (b)(l)(C)(i) and

(b)(1)(C)(ii) of its proposal to reflect that subsequent USEPA detennination. ld. at 15-16.

Also in its first motion to amend, the Agency responded to a comment by industry

representatives by proposing to amend subsection (b)(I)(E). Mot. Amend I at 16 ('il13).

Specifically, the Agency seeks to remove "the requirement that a source include in its

notification to the Illinois EPA calculations showing an exceedancc of the applicability

threshold." ld at 16-17. Responding to a question at the first hearing, the Agency clarified that,

when a source reports an exceedance under this provisions, "they do not have to tell us how

much they exceeded it by." Tr.1 at 22. The Agency emphasized that this requirement intends

chiefly to determine whether a source is subject to the rule and not to determine the precise

amount of an exceedance. See id. at 22-23.

The Agency also proposes a new subsection (b)(2) addressing "heatset web offset

lithographic printing lines exempt pursuant to Section 218/219.405(c)(1) but not exempt

pursuant to Section 218/219.405(c)(2). SR at 29; see Prop. 218 at 98-100, Prop. 219 at 98-100.

In addition to standard recordkeeping and reporting requircments, the Agency in that provision

proposes an emission adjustment factor to be used when determining YOM

emissions from inks used on lithographic printing line(s) at the source, and an ,

emission adjustment factor to be used when calculating emissions from used shop

towels if the YOM compositc vapor pressure of each associated cleaning solution

is less than 10 mmHg measured at 20°C (68°F) and the shop towels are kept in

closed containers." SR at 29; see Prop. 218 at 98-100, Prop. 219 at 98-100.

In'its first motion to amend, the Agency responded to a comment by industry representatives by

proposing to amend subsection (b)(2)(0). Mot. Amend I at 15-17 ('il14). Specifically, the

Agency seeks to remove "the requirement that a source include in its notification to the Illinois

EPA calculations showing an exceedances ofthe applicability threshold." ld.; see Tr.1 at 22.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposes to redesignate the existing subsection (a)(2) as

subection (c). Prop. 218 at 100-02, Prop. 219 at 100-02; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.41 I(a)(2),

219.4II(a)(2). The Agency seeks to amend this provision "to provide that the recordkeeping

requirements in subsections (c)(I) or (c)(2) do not apply to sources utilizing the material use

limitations alternative. SR at 29; see Prop. 218 at 100-02, Prop. 219 at 100-02. The Agency also

proposes to delete subsection (c)(3). SR at 29; see Prop. 218 at 102, Prop. 219 at 102.

Subsection (d). Existing subsection (b) establishes requirements applicable to heatset

web offset lithographic printing line(s) subject to Section 21 8/2 I9.407(a)(1 )(C) or (b)(1). See 35

HI. Adm. Code 218.41 I(b), 219.4II(b) In the redesignated subsection (d), the Agency proposes

to add a requirement "that sources complying with the add-on control device requirements shall

include in their initial certification to the II1inois EPA that date that thc device was first
35

constructed at the subject source." SR at 29; see Prop. 218 at 102-04, Prop. 219 at 102-04. The

Agency also proposes to amend subsection (d)(3)(D) "to change the frequency that owners or

operators of heatset web offset lithographic printing lines complying with the add-on control

device requirements are required to check the air flow direction or air pressure ofthe dryer and

press room from once a day to once per calendar month." SR at 29; see Prop. 218 at 104, Prop.

219 at 104.

Subsectioll (e). Existing subsection (c) establishes requirements applicable to

lithographic printing lines subject to Sections 2181219.407(a)(J)(A), (a)(2), or (a)(3). See 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 218.411 (c), 219.411 (c). ln the redesignated subsection (e), the Agency "proposes

amending subsection (e)(1)(C) to provide that a source subject to fountain solution YOM content

limitations shall include in its initial certification a statement that the fountain solution will

comply with the YOM content limitations in Section 21 8/219.407(a)(J)(A), (a)(2), or (a)(3), as

applicable." SR at 30; see Prop. 218 at 105, Prop. 219 at 104. The Agency also proposes to

amend subsection (e)(2)(C) "to provide that the weight of each component used in a fountain

solution batch shall be recorded by sources, if applicable." SR at 30; see Prop. 218 at 106, Prop.

219 at 106. In addition, the Agency "proposes deleting subsection (e)(4)." SR at 30; see Prop.

218 at 107, Prop. 219 at 107.

Subsectioll (f). Existing subsection (d) establishes requirements for lithographic printing

lines subjectto Section 218/219.407. 35111. Adm. Code 218.4II(d), 219.4II(d). In the

redesignated subsection (f)(J), the Agency proposes an amendment "to specify that lithographic

printing line cleaning operations that are excluded pursuant to Section 218/219.405(c)(3)(C) are

not required to submit a certification pursuant to subsection (f)." SR at 30; see Prop. 218 at 108,

Prop. 219 at 107-08. In addition, the Agency "proposes deleting subsection (f)(l)(A), (f)(I)(C),

and (f)(4), and amending the relettered subsection (f)(I)(A) to provide that a sourcc subject to the

cleaning requirements in Section 218/219.407 shall include in its initial certification a statement

that the cleaning solution will comply with the limitations in Section 21 8/2 I9.407(a)(4)." SR at

30; see Prop. 218 at 108-10; Prop. 219 at 108-10.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency responded to a request from industry

representatives. Mot. Amend I at 17-18 ("15). The Agency proposed amending subsections

(f)(2)(B) and (f)(2)(C) "by specifying that, for cleaning solutions used as-purchased, sources may

use manufacturer's specifications to determine YOM content and YOM composite partial vapor

pressure." Jd. at 18-19.

Subsectioll (g). The Agency proposes to add a new subsection (g). The Agency seeks to

establish "recordkeeping and reporting requirements for owners or operators oflithographic

printing line(s) subject to one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 21 8/2 I9.405(c)(3)."

SR at 30; see Prop. 218 at 111-12, Prop. 219 at II 0-12. Specifically, the Agency states that

[s]uch owners or operators shall submit an initial certification to the Illinois EPA,

collect and record specified information for each subject printing line, notify the

Agency if the printing line ever becomes ineligible for the exclusions set forth in

Section 21 8/21 9.405(c)(3), and, if changing between opting out ofsuch

exclusions and utilization of the exclusions, submit an additional certification,
36

infonning the llIinois EPA ofthe change. SR at 30-31; see Prop. 218 at 111-12,

Prop. 219 at 110-12.

In responding to a question at the first hearing, the Agency indicated that, as a source, "you

would not have to report the information under [subsection] (g)(2)(A) if you did state that you

would not be using the exclusion." Tr.l at 16-18.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency responds to a request from industry

representative by proposing to amend subsection (g)(2)(A)(ii) "to correct a grammar mistake."

Mot Amend I at 20 (~16). Also in the first motion to amend, the Agency responds to an industry

comment by proposing to amend subsection (g)(2)(B) "by removing the requirement that a

source include in its notification to Jl1inois EPA calculations showing an exceedances ofthe

applicability threshold." !d. at 20-21 (~17).

Subsection (i). The Agency also proposes to add a subsection (i). The Agency seeks to

establish "emission adjustment factors that may be used when calculating YOM emissions from

heatset web offset lithographic printing operations for purposes other than the applicability

thresholds in Section 218/219.405." SR at 31; see Prop. 218 at 112-14, Prop. 219 at 112-14.

Letterpress Printing.

Illtroductioll. The Agency states that "[I]etterpress printing involves the use of a reverseimaged raised surface that is inked and then pressed against a substrate to transfer the image."

TSD at 4 (§2.2). The Agency further states that, compared with lithographic, flexographic, and

rotogravure printing, "[I]etterpress operation make up a very small percentage ofthe printing

industry." Id. Based on its source inventory, the Agency indicates that "no letterpress printing

facility could be found in the Metro-East NAA, with very few ofthese facilities found even in

the Chicago NAA." Id.

In testimony on behalf of the Agency, Mr. Bloomberg indicated that "the State is still

required to promulgate the CTG regulations for this category." Bloomberg Test. at 5. He further

stated that "letterpress printing presses are often operated at the same source as lithographic

printing[,] and many ofthe control options for letterpress printing are the same as the control

options for lithographic printing as well. This is especially true in terms of cleaning solutions.

As such, the proposed rule would adopt most ofthe RACT recommendations ofthe CTG." Id.

The Agency states that letterpress and lithographic printing operations use inks that are'

"very similar" and may both be accomplished through sheet-fed and web presses. TSD at 4.

The Agency thus argues that "ink emission sources are similar" to those oflithographic printing.

Id. The Agency further argues that, although "[I]etterpress operations do not use fountain

solutions," they use cleaning solutions similar to those used in lithographic printing operations."

TSD at 4; see Bloomberg Test. at 5.

Cllrrellt Regulatiolls. The Agency states that "[t]here are no specific Jl1inois regulations

covering letterpress printing operations; any such operations would therefore be covered by
37

Subpart TT, Section 218/219.301, or paper coating regulations. TSD at 16 (§5.2); see 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 218.204(c), 218.301, 218.980-988, 219.204(c), 219.301, 219.980-988

Summary ofProposed Amendments Addressing Letterpress Printing. The Agency

states that its proposal addresses "both heatset and non-heatset letterpress operations." TSD at

16; see Prop. 218 at 114-129, Prop. 219 at 114-30. The Agency further states that the proposal

"would require that heatset letterpress printers use an add-on control device ifthey meet the

applicability requirements of25 TPY PTE plantwide." TSD at 16; see SR at 8-9. The Agency

believes that no operation in either ofthe two NAAs would be subject to this requirement. TSD

at 16.

The Agency further states that "[a]ll letterpress printing operations of 15 PPD or more

will be also required to abide by cleaning material limitations equivalent to those" applicable to

lithographic printing sources emitting between 15 and 100 PPD. TSD at 16; see SR at 9.

Specifically, such sources would be required to use cleaning solutions containing no morc than

70 percent YOM or having a maximum composite partial vapor pressure or less than 10 mm Hg.

Id. In his testimony on behalf ofthe Agency, Mr. Bloomberg stated that, because letterpress

printing operations have never specifically been regulated in Illinois, this 70 percent content limit

represents no loosening of existing standards. Bloomberg Test. at 5.

Section 218.412/219.412: Letterpress Printing Lines: Applicability. The Agency

proposes a new Section 218/219.412 addressing the applicability ofthe proposed letterpress

printing provisions. SR at 31; see Prop. 218 at 114, Prop. 219 at 114. Below, the Board

summarizes those proposed additions on a subsection-by-subsection basis.

Subsection (aj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (a)(I) providing "that the

limitations in Section 218/219.413 through 218/219.416 apply to all owners of operators of

heatset web letterpress printing lines if such lines (including solvents used for cleanup operations

associated with such lines) at the source have a potential to emit 22.7 Mg (25 tons) or more of

YOM per year." SR at 31; see Prop. 218 at 114, Prop. 219 at 114. The Agency also proposes a

new subsection (a)(2) providing that "Sections 218/219.413 through 218/219.416 apply to all

owners or operators ofletterpress printing lines at sources where the combined emissions of

YOM from all letterpress printing lines at the source (including solvents used for cleanup

operations associated with the letterpress printing lines) ever equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15

Ibs/day), in the absence of air pollution control equipment." SR at 31; see Prop. 218 at 114,

Prop. 219 at 114.

Subsectioll (bj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (b) providing "that the

requirements of Section 218/219.413(a)(2) shall not apply to up to 416.3 liters (100 gallons) per

year of cleaning materials used on letterpress printing lines at a subject source." SR at 31; see

Prop. 218 at 114, Prop. 219 at 114.

Subsectioll (cj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (c) providing that, "on and after

May 1, 2010, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Section 218/219.417 shall apply

to all owners or operators ofletterpress printing line(s)." SR at 32; see Prop. 218 at 114, Prop.

219at114.
38

Subsectiou (d). The Agency proposes a new subsection (d) providing that, "if a

letterpress printing line at a source is or becomes subject to one or more of the limitations in

Section 218/219.413, the letterpress printing lines at the source are always subject to the

provisions of Subpart H." SR at 32; see Prop. 218 at 114, Prop. 219 at 114.

Sectiou 218.413/219.413: Emissiou Limitatious aud Control Requirements (or

Letterpress Printilzg Lines. The Agency proposes to add a new Section 218/219.413

establishing various requirements for letterpress printing lines. SR at 32; see Prop. 218 at 115-

lG, Prop. 219 at 115-16.

Subsectiou (a). The Agency proposes a new subsection (a)(l) providing in part that

heatset web letterpress printing lines that meet the applicability requirements of

Section 218/219.412(a)(l) shall maintain the air pressure in the dryer lower than

the air pressure ofthe press room and install and operate an afterburner that

reduces YOM emissions by 90-95 percent, depending on the date that the

afterburner was first constructed at the subject source, or to a maximum

afterburner exhaust outlet concentration of20 mmpv (as carbon). SR at 32; see

Prop. 218 at 115, Prop. 219 at 115.

In addition, the Agency proposes to require that "[s]uch printing lines shall also equip the

afterburner with applicable monitoring equipment and operate the afterburner at all times when

the printing line is in operation, except as provided in Section 218/219.107." SR at 32; see Prop.

218 at 115, Prop. 219 at 115.

In proposed subsection (a)(2), the Agency proposes to provide that "no OWller or operator

ofsubject letterpress printing lines shall use cleaning solutions on such lines unless the YOM

content ofthe as-used cleaning solution is less than or equal to 70 percent, by weight, or the

YOM composite vapor pressure ofthe as-used cleaning solution is less than 10 mmHg at 20

degrees Celsius." SR at 32; see Prop. 218 at 115-16, Prop. 219 at 115-16.

In proposed subsection (a)(3), the Agency seeks to require that "[c]leaning materials must

be kept, stored, and disposed ofin closed containers, except when specifically in use." SR at 32;

see Prop. 218 at 11G, Prop. 219 at 116.

Subsectioll (b). The Agency proposes a new subsection (b) providing "that heatset web

letterpress printing lines may use a control device other than an afterburner if the control device

meets the YOM emissions reduction requirements in subsection (a) and is approved by the

Illinois EPA and USEPA as federally enforceable permit conditions." SR at 33; see Prop. 218 at

1IG, Prop. 219 at 11G.

Sectioll 218.415/219.415: Testiug (or Letterpress Priutillg Lilies. The Agency proposes

to add a new section addressing testing requirements applicable to letterpress printing lines

subject to Section 218/219.413. SR at 33-34; see Prop. 218 at 116-19, Prop. 219 at 116-19.
39

Subsectioll (a). In proposed subsection (a), the Agency seeks to require "that testing to

demonstrate compliance with [Section] 218/219.413 shall be conducted at the expense of the

owner or operator within 90 days of a request by the Illinois EPA, and the owner or operator

shall notify the Illinois EPA 30 days in advance of conducting such testing." SR at 33; see Prop.

218 at 116, Prop. 219 at 116. In its first motion to amend, the Agency responds to a request by

industry representatives by seeking to amend this subsection to clarify when testing must be

perfonned. Mot. Amend I at 21 ('ll18).

Subsectioll (b). In its proposed subsection (b), the Agency proposes to describe "the

methods and procedures in Section 218/219.1 05(d) and (f) that shall be used for testing to

demonstrate compliance with the add-on control device requirements of Section

218/2] 9.413(a)(1 )(B) and (b)(1 )." SR at 33; see Prop. 218 at 117-] 8, Prop. 219 at 117-] 8.

SubsectioJl (c). The Agency proposes a new subsection (c) providing "that testing to

demonstrate compliance with the YOM content limitations in Section 218/2]9.413(a)(2)(A) and

to detennine the YOM content of cleaning solvents, cleaning solutions, and inks shall be

conducted using the applicable test methods and procedures in Section 218/219.105(a)." SR at

33; see Prop. 218 at 118, Prop. 219 at 118. The Agency also seeks to provide in subsection

(c)(2) that "[t]he manufacturer's specifications for YOM content for cleaning solvents and inks

may be used ifsuch specifications are based on results oftests conducted in accordance with

Section 218/219.105(a)." SR at 33; see Prop. 2] 8 at 118, Prop. 219 at 118.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency responds to a request by industry representatives

by seeking to amend this subsection to clarify when testing must be perfonned. Mot. Amend I

at 21 ('ll18).

SubsectioJl (d). The Agency proposes a new subsection (d) providing "that testing to

demonstrate compliance with Section 218/219.413(b) shall be conducted as set forth in the

owner or operator's plan approved by the Illinois EPA and USEPA as federally enforceable

pennit conditions." SR at 34; see Prop. 2]8 at] 18, Prop. 2]9 at 118.

Subsectioll (e). The Agency proposes a new subsection (e) providing "that testing to

detennine the YOM composite partial vapor pressure of cleaning solvents, cleaning solvent

concentrates, and as-used cleaning solutions shall be conducted in accordance with the

applicable methods and procedures specified in Section 218/219.1 ]0." SR at 34; see Prop. 218

at 118-19, Prop. 219 at 118-19.

S ectio" 218.416/219.416: MoJlitoriJlg RequiremeJlts fOr Letterpress PriJltill g Lilles.

The Agency proposes to add a new section addressing monitoring of emissions from letterpress

printing lines. See SR at 34, Prop. 218 at 119-20, Prop. 219 at ] 19-20.

Subsectioll (a). The Agency proposes a new subsection (a) providing "that, if an

afterburner is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator of a heatset web letterpress

printing line shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring devices with

an accuracy of 3° C or 5° F on the afterburner in accordance with Section 218/219.] 05(d)(2) and

in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications." SR at 34; see Prop. 218 at 119, Prop. 219
40

at 119. The Agency also secks to rcquire in proposed new subsection (a)(I) that monitoring

must be "perfonned at all times when the afterburner is operating...." Prop. 218 at 119, Prop.

219 at 119; see SR at 34. In subsection (a)(2), the Agency proposes to require that "owners or

operators shall also install, calibrate, operate, and maintain in accordance with manufacturer's

specifications a continuous recordcr on the temperature monitoring devices with at least the same

accuracy as the temperature monitor." SR at 34; see Prop. 218 at 119, Prop. 219 at 119.

Subsection (bj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (b) providing "that if a control

device other than an afterburner is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator of a

heatset web letterpress printing line shall install, maintain, calibrate, and operate such monitoring

equipment as set forth in the owner or operator's plan approved by the Illinois EPA and USEPA

pursuant to Section 218/219.413(b)." SR at 34; see Prop. 218 at 119, Prop. 219 at 119.

Subsection (cj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (c) setting "forth the monitoring

requirements for owners or operators ofletterpress printing lines relying on the YOM content of

the cleaning solution to comply with Section 218/219.413(a)(2)(A), or relying on the vapor

pressure of the cleaning solution to comply with Section 21 8/21 9(a)(2)(B)." SR at 35; see Prop.

218 at 119-20, Prop. 219 at 119-20. .

Section 218.417/219.417: Recordkeeping and Reporting (or Letterpress Printing

Lines. The Agency proposes to add a new section addressing recordkeeping and reporting for

Ictterpress printing lines. SR at 35; see Prop. 218 at 120-29, Prop. 219 at 120-30.

Subsection (aj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (a) providing

that the owner or operator of a heatset web letterpress printing line exempt from

any ofthe limitations of Section 2181219.413 because ofthe criteria in Section

. 218/219.412(a)(I) shall submit a certification to the Illinois EPA that includes a

declaration that the source is exempt and calculations that demonstrate that the

source's total potential to emit YOM does not equal or exceed 25 tons per year.

SR at 35; see Prop. 218 at 119, Prop. 219 at 120.

Subsection (bj. The Agency proposes a new subsection (b) providing

that the owner or operator of a letterpress printing line exempt from any ofthe

limitations of Section 2181219.413 because ofthe criteria in Section

21 8/21 9.412(a)(2) shall submit a certification to the Illinois EPA that includes a

declaration that the source is exempt, calculations that demonstrate that combined

emissions ofVOM from all letterpress printing lines at the souree never equal or

exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 1bs/day), and a description and the results of all tests used

to detennine the YOM content ofinks and cleaning solvents. SR at 35; see Prop.

218 at 120-23, Prop. 219 at 120-23.

In its proposed subsection (b)(1 )(D), the Agency seeks to provide that, "as an alternative

to the YOM emission calculations set forth in subsection (b)(I)(B), a source may detennine that

it emits below 6.8 kg/day (I51bs/day) ofVOM ifit complies with material use limitations during
41

each calendar month." SR at 35-36; see Prop. 218 at 122, Prop. 219 at 122. The Agency

proposed language limiting the availability ofthis alternative to sources with only a single type

ofletterpress printing operations. SR at 35-36; see Prop. 218 at 122, Prop. 219 at 122. The

Agency also proposed to require that, "[i]f a source exceeds the material use limitation in any

given month, the source shall complete emissions calculations pursuant to subsection (b)(I)(B)

within 15 days of the end ofthat month." SR at 36; see Prop. 218 at 122, Prop. 219 at 122. The

Agency also proposed that any source exceeding the limitation for six consecutive months was

no longer eligible to rely upon the material use alternative. SR at 36; see Prop. 218 at 122, Prop.

219 at 122.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency proposed to change the material use thresholds

for letterpress printing lines. Mot. Amend I at 22 (~119). The Agency states that "USEPA .

previously recommended that material use thrcsholds for lithographic printing Jines be

conservatively based on 50 percent ofthe pound per day applicability threshold. USEPA has

now determined that a 90 percent emissions equivalency level is acceptable for both lithographic

and letterpress printing operations." !d. Accordingly, the Agency seeks to amend proposed

subsections (b)(I)(D)(i) and (b)(I)(D)(ii) to reflect this 90 percent equivalency. Id.

In proposed subsection (b)(2), the Agency sought to require that subject sources shall

notify the Agency if the combined emissions ofVOM from all letterpress printing lines at the

source ever equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 Ibs/day)." SR at 35; see Prop. 218 at 123, Prop. 219

at 123. In its first motion to amend, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (b)(2) "by

removing the requirement that a souree include in its notification to the Illinois EPA calculations

showing an exceedancc of the applicability thrcshold." Mot. Amend 1 at 22-23 (~20).

Subsectiou (c). Thc Agency proposes a new subsection (c) providing "that, unless

utilizing the material use alternative, the owner or operator of a letterpress printing line subject to

the requirements in subsection (a) or (b) of this Section shall collect and record either the

specified standard recordkeeping information or the specified purchase and inventory

recordkeeping information." SR at 36; see Prop. 218 at 123-24, Prop. 219 at 123-25.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposes a new subsection (d)(I) providing

that the owner or operator of a heatset web letterpress printing line subject to

Section 218/219.413(a)(I)(B) or (b)(I) ofthis Subpart shall submit a certification

to the Illinois EPA that includes identification of each heatset web letterpress

printing line at the source, a declaration that each such line is in compliance with

Section 218/21 9.4 I3(a)(I) or (b), the type of afterburner or other approved control

device being used and the date that such device was first constructed at the subject

source, the control requirements with which the printing line is complying, the

results of all tests and calculations necessary to demonstrate compliance, and a

declaration that the required monitoring equipment has been properly installed

and calibrated. SR at 36; see Prop. 218 at 125-27, Prop. 219 at 125-27.

Proposed subsection (d)(2) seeks to require that,
42

ifthe testing of an afterburner or other approved control device is conducted

pursuant to Section 218/219.415(b), the owner or operator shall submit a copy of

all test results to I1linois EPA, as well as a certification that includes a declaration

that all necessary tests and calculations have been performed, a statement whether

the printing line is in compliance with Section 218/219.413(a)(I)(B) or (b)(I), and

the operating parameters ofthe afterburner or other approved control device

during testing. SR at 37; see Prop. 218 at 125-26, Prop. 219 at 126.

The subsection also proposes that an owner or operator changing its method of compliance "must

certify compliance for the new method of compliance and perform all tests and calculations

necessary to demonstrate compliance with such method." SR at 37; see Prop. 218 at 126-27,

Prop. 219 at 127.

Subsection (d)(3) also proposes to require that an owner or operator "collect and record

specified information for each heatset web letterpress printing line and notify the I1linois EPA of

any violation of Section 2181219.413(a)(I)(B) or (b)(I)." SR at 36; see Prop. 218 at 125-27,

Prop. 219 at 125-27.

Subsection (e). The Agency proposes a new subsection (e) establishing various

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. See SR at 37, Prop. 218 at 127-29, Prop. 219 at 127-

30. The proposed provision "provides that the owner or operator of a letterpress printing line

shall certifY to the I1linois EPA that all cleaning solutions, other than those excluded pursuant to

Section 218.412(b), and the handling of all cleaning materials will be in compliance with Section

218/2 I9.413(a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) and (a)(3)." SR at 37; see Prop. 218 at 127, Prop. 219 at 127.

The proposed certification must also include specific information regarding cleaning operations

at the subject printing line. SR at 37; see Prop. 218 at 127, Prop. 219 at 127. In addition, "[t]he

owner or operator shall collect and record specified information for each solution used on each

letterpress printing line and notifY the lIlinois EPA ofany violation of Section 218/219.413." SR

at 37; see Prop. 218 at 127-29, Prop. 219 at 127-30.

In its first motion to amend, the Agency responded to comment by industry

representatives by proposing to amend subsections 218/219(e)(2)(B) and (e)(2)(C) "by

specifying that, for cleaning solutions used as-purchased, sources may use manufacturer's

specifications to determine YOM content and YOM composite partial vapor pressure." Mot.

Amend 1 at 23-25 (~21).

Subsection (f). The Agency proposed a new subsection (f) providing "that the owner or

operator of a printing line shall maintain all records required by this Section for a minimum

period ofthree years and shall make all records available to the Agency upon request." SR at 38;

see Prop. 218 at 129, Prop. 219 at 130.

SUMMARY OF POST-HEARING COMMENT (PC 1)

A noted above under "Procedural History," the Board on December 28,2009, received a

timely post-hearing comment from Mr. Bruce Meerman, Senior Environmental Consultant,

Mostardi Platt Environmental. See PC 1. Mr. Merman states that he "represents a heatset offset
43

lithographic printer who recently installed a replacement catalytic oxidizer in three (3) older

heatset lithographic printing lines." Jd. at I. He suggests that pennits applicable to those lines

allow the control devices to operate with a minimum 90% destruction efficiency. See id. His

comments address two subsections ofthe Agency's proposed regulations, each of which is

addressed in the following subsections ofthe opinion.

Section 218/219.407(a)(l)(C)

Mr. Meennan states that Illinois has proposed to incorporate the requirements ofthe CTG

for lithographic and letterpress printing in a specific fashion. See PC I at I. He requests that the

Board clarify this proposed language to show whether it addresses "the printing line, the

afterburner, or both." PC I at I. He also requests that the Board clarify "that it is the

installationloperation date ofthe unit that detennines what percent efficiency must be achieved,

and not that all control devices must perfonn at a higher dcstruction efficiency after May I,

20 J0" !d. at 1-2.

The Board notes that the Agency's proposed Section 218/219.407(a)(I)(C) requires the

installation and operation of an afterburner "so that YOM emissions (excluding methane and

ethane) from the press dryer exhaust(s) are reduced as follows: ...[oln and after May I, 2010. by

at least 90 percent. by weight. for afterburners first constructed at the source prior to January I,

2010; by at least 95 percent, by weight, for afterburners first constmeted at the source on or after

January I, 2010; or to a maximum afterburner exhaust outlet concentration of20 mmpv (as

carbon) ..." Prop. 218 at 86-87, Prop. 219 at 86.

:me Board concludes that the rulemaking proposal submitted to the Board and cited in the

preceding paragraph satisfactorily addresses the two requests for clarification. However, the

Board invites comment during the 45-day first-notice comment period from any participant who

wishes to address either ofthose matters.

Section 21812l9.407fb)

Existing Section 218/219.407(b) addresses the use of a control device other than an

afterburner by the owner or operator of a heatset web offset lithographic printing line. 35 Ill.

Adm, Code 218.407(b), 219.407(b). Mr. Meennan states that

[c]urrent heatset lithographic presses are designed with an integrated drying

ovcnlthennal oxidizer control. These units easily achieve the proposed 95%

destmction rate and are cost effective when purchasing new heatset presses.

Many existing older units, however, require stand alone control devices. They are

not engineered for optimized (lower) dryer air flow rates. As control device

operation costs (natural gas usage) are high for these older presses[,] it is more

cost effective to duct emissions to catalytic oxidizers for control. Catalyst

efficiency may slightly reduce over timer,] and we wish to ensure that it is clear in

the rules that these units will always be able to comply with the 90 destruction

minimum. PC I at 2.
44

Mr. Meernlan first seeks clarification "whether it is the effective operation date of the printing

line or the control device, or both in relation to the May I, 2010 control efficiency requirement."

!d. Second, ifthe control device is the dctermining factor, he seeks clarification "that all cxisting

units maintain their status (90% destruction) through all equipment maintena,nce and repair,

including replacement of catalyst." ld.

The Board notes that the Agency's proposed Section 218/219.407(b)(1 )(B) provides that

[a]n owner or operator of a heatset web offset lithographic printing line subject to

the requirements ofsubsection (a)(1 )(C) may use a control device other than an

afterburner, if... the control device reduces YOM emissions from the press dryer

exhaust(s) as follows:

ill [o]n and after May 1, 2010:

il By at least 90 percent, by weight, for control devices first

constructed at the source prior to January 1,2010;

ill By at least 95 percent, by weight. for control devices first

constructed at the source on or after January 1, 20 I0: or

iii} To a maximum control device exhaust outlet conccntration of20

ppmv (as carbon). Prop. 218 at 88, Prop. 219 at 87-88.

The Board concludes that the rulemaking proposal submitted to the Board and cited in the

preceding paragraph satisfactorily address the two requests for clarification. However, the Board

invites comment during the 45-day first-notice comment period from any participant who wishes

to address either ofthose matters.

AFFECTED SOURCES AND I'ROJECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

The Agency states that its proposed regulations apply only within the Chicago and Metro

East regions, the state's two areas designated as nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone NAAQS.

SR at 9, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.314. Specifically, the Agency states that, within those two areas, the

regulations "are generally expected to affect both new and existing sources that are covered by a

Group II CTG" and that meet the proposed applicability criteria. SR at 9, In Appendix B to its

TSD, the Agency lists 136 potentially affccted sources itemized by category and thcn by NAA

within those categories. TSD at 25-28 (Appendix B),

The Board addresses the record with regard to potentially affected sources and projected

emission rcductions on a category-by-category basis in the following subsections.

Industrial Cleaning Solvents

The Agency notes USEPA's estimate that 130 sources in ll1inois' two nonattainment

areas emit a total of 15 PPD or more ofVOM from cleaning operations at the source. TSD at 20
45

(~6.4); see Prop. 218 at 4 (proposed Section 218.1 87(a)(l ) addressing applicability). Responding

to a question at the first hearing, the Agency indicated that its proposed regulations apply to

"anybody who uses this amount of industrial cleaning solvents" and not only to the operations

included in Group 11 Consumer and Commercial Product categories. Tr.1 at 10. The Agency

argues that, because it does not generally seek specific information on solvent use and because

that usc may not be subject to a current permit, "there was no good way to make an estimate as

to who might be affected...." !d. at II. Accordingly, the Agency states that its "Appendix B

does not list specific sources that are potentially affected by this rulemaking." Id; see ISD at 25-

28 (Appendix B). The Agency stated that it intends to communicate with small business owners,

industry representatives, and DCEO through the process of considering and implementing these

proposed ru1es. Tr.1 at II.

The Agency states that baseline emissions from the 130 sources noted by USEPA are

estimated to be 2293 MG/yr (2528 tpy) ofVOM. TSD at 20. The Agency further states that this

estimate includes "degreasing operations that are already impacted by existing state regulations

and will not gain any further reductions." Id. The Agency argues that "[i]t is not reasonably

practicable to estimatc cmission reductions for thc other impacted sources under the industrial

clean-up solvent rule, as any source in either NAA that uses cleaning solvent is potentially

affected, depending on the source's usage leve1." TSD at 20-21; see Tr.1 at 9-11. The Agency

also claims that potentially affected sources may already be using solutions that comply with the

proposed regulations. Id. at 21. Accordingly, "the Agency believes that the environment will

see actual YOM emission reductions due to these proposed regulations, but ca1eulation ofsuch

emission reductions cannot be accomplished without detailed information from every affected

source." TSD at 21.

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

The Agency's search of the 2005 source inventory maintained by its Bureau of Air

indicates that four sources, all in the Chicago NAA, will become subject to the proposed flat

wood paneling coating regulations. TSD at 21 (§6.5). The Agency states that "[o]ne ofthese

four sources would appcar to fall below the proposed applicability threshold" and that "[t]he

other three total 0.09 TPD ofVOM emissions." Id. The Agency claims that the CTa projects

YOM emission reductions averaging 60 percent from interior paneling and tileboard

manufacturing. Id. Stating that the Illinois sources appear to fall within these two categories, the

Agency "estimates a YOM reduction of 0.05 TPD in the Chicago NAA...." Id

Flexible Packaging Printing Lines

Thc Agency stresses difficulties in estimating emission reductions in this category. First,

the Agency states that "the Illinois source database does not generally specify the type of

substrate being used by a flexographic or rotogravure printing operation." TSD at 20 (§6.3).

The Agency further states that the data also do not "specify the date of original installation of the

printing press or the associated control device." Id. Accordingly, the Agency lists as a

potentially affected source each existing flexographic or rotogravure printing facility in the

Illinois inventory and exceeding the proposed applicability threshold. Id.; see id. at 27-28

(Appendix B).
46

The Agency emphasizes, however, that "all sources but one using flexographic or

rotogravure printing of any type are already achieving greater control efficiency than required by

the proposed regulation." TSD at 20. The Agency states that the single remaining source "is

required by its permit to achieve 60 percent control efficiency, but will now need to achieve 65

percent." !d. The Agency claims that this represents a reduction of 0.03 TPD in permitted

emissions, "but a 0.01 TPD reduction according to emissions information in the inventory." !d.

The Agency expects negligible emission reductions from proposed ncw ink limits. TSD

at 20. Thc Agency states that, "[w]hile the inventory docs not provide information regarding thc

use of compliant inks, it has been the Agency's experience that sources printing on flexible

. packaging have had difficulty with the use of compliant YOM inks on such substrates." !d. The

Agency reports that "[s]ources either relied on add-on controls or switched to water-based inks

that should mcet the newly proposcd requirements as well as the existing oncs." Id.

Regarding proposed work practice standards for cleaning materials, the Agency argucs

that they "do not lend thcmselves to a calculation of emission reductions." TSD at 20. The

Agency claims that actUal YOM emission reductions will result from requirements such as

"storing of cleaning materials and used shop towels in closed containers, as well as conveying

cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes...." Id. The Agency argues, however, that

"calculation ofsuch emission reductions cannot be accomplished without detailed information

from every affected source -- both before and after such changes are madc." Id.

Lithographic Printing Lines

The Agency first states that it "does not expect any additional [emission] reductions from

increasing the required control efficiency for heatsct web lithographic printers from 90 to 95

percent, because that change will not affect existing control devices." TSD at 18 (§6.1). The

Agency does expect "some small YOM reductions rclated to the addition offountain and

cleaning solution requirements for sources with 15 PPD or more of emissions." Id. The Agency

claims that it is difficult to estimate these reductions bccause it is not possible to identifY sources

that may be excluded from the proposed requirements. !d. The Agency elaborates that its source

inventory "does not track information such as the numbcr of gallons of cleaning solution used,

the size ofsheet-fed presses, or the fountain solution reservoir volume...." Id.

The Agency's search ofthe 2005 source inventory maintained by its Bureau of Air

indicates that 98 lithographic printing sources in the Chicago NAA and threc in the Metro East

NAA have YOM emission over IS PPD. TSD at 18. The Agency reports that 66 ofthe sources

in the Chicago NAA and all three of the sources in the Metro East NAA emit less than 100 PPD

and are potentially affected by the proposed regulations. [d.

For thcse potentially affected sources, the Agency estimated potential emission

reductions attributable to reformulation offountain solutions at between 25% and 90% for

smaller sources. TSD at 19. Because this estimate is based on a 1993 draft CTG, and because

the current CTG refers to steps reducing the YOM content offountain solutions, the Agency

relied on the 25% estimate in calculating reductions. !d. The Agency argues that "[c]leaning
47

solutions can be calculated as a straight 30% reduct·ion, since the regulation requires

refonnulation such that they cannot contain more than 70% YOM. " Ill. With regard to cleaning

solutions emissions, the Agency claims that they "make up a lower percentage of emissions

compared to fountain solutions, ranging up to approximately 50% at certain facilities." Ill. The

Agency argues that, "[a]ssuming that almost 50% of non-ink.emissions come from cleaning

solutions, which have 30% reduction, it is safe to use a 25% overall emission reduction to cover

all YOM originating from the source." Ill.

The Agency states that total YOM emissions from the 66 potentially affected sources in

the Chicago NAA equal 1.455 TPD. TSD at 19. Accordingly, a 25% reduction represents 0.36

TPD of YOM. Ill. The Agency further state that, in the Metro East NAA, a 25% reduction from

total emissions of 0.0295 TPD represents a reduction of 0.007 TPD. Ill.

Letterpress Printing

Because the Agency believes that there are no heatset web letterpress printing operations

in the two NAAs, it expects no emission reductions from add-on controls for this category. TSD

at 19 (§6.2). The Agency's search of the 2005 source inventory maintained by its Bureau of Air

indicates that there are two sources in the Chicago NAA using letterpress printing. Ill. The

Agency states that "[0 ]nly one of these sources appears to emit more than 15 PPD from such

operations, with less than 0.02 TPD of YOM, including emissions from the letterpress as well as

other printing operations." Ill. The Agency argues that, "[e]ven if all of the emissions originated

from letterpress cleaning solutions, which are to be reduced by 30 percent, the resulting

reduction would be 0.005 TPD. Jd. Accordingly, the Agency expects only "negligible" emission

reduction from proposed regulations for this category. Ill.

TECHNICAL FEASlBILTY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

Technical Feasibility

Particularly in its Technical Suppqrt Document, the Agency addresses various

approaches to controlling YOM emissions from Group II product categories. See TSD at 7-12

(Technical Feasibility ofControls). The Agency argues that "[a]ffected sources can meet the

requirements in the proposed amendments through a number ofreadily available control

techniques." SR at 9. In the subsections below, the Board addresses the record on the issue of

the technical feasibility of those techniques.

Industrial Cleaning Solvents

The Agency notes the recommendation of the CTG that sources emitting more than IS

pounds per day of YOM through industrial cleaning comply with various requirements. TSD at

10 (§3.4), citing Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September

2006. The Agency states that the various cleaning activities "use a multitude of different

solvents with different styles of applications." TSD at 10. The Agency proposes regulations

covering "a wide range ofproducts that remove contaminants from parts, products, tools, .
48

machinery, and other work production areas." Id. The Agency stresses work practices, solvent

substitution, and controls as the chief techniques for reducing YOM emissions in this category.

!d. at 10-11; SR at 10.

Work Practices. The Agency indicates that solvent management practices can reduce

YOM emissions. TSD at 10. The Agency states that these practices "include keeping solvent

containers and used applicators covered; properly storing and disposing ofspent solvents and

used cleaning rags; minimizing air circulation around all cleaning operations; and implementing

equipment practices that reduce emission, e.g., leak detection and repair practices." Id.; see

Prop. 218 at 9 (proposed Section 218.187(d», Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Scction 219.1 87(d».

Alternate Control. The Agency states that add-on controls, equipment modification,

and changing cleaning methods all can reduce YOM emissions. TSD at II. The Agency further

states that "[t]he CTG recommends an overall control efficiency of 85 percent reduction in

emissions ofVOM, which is reflected in the proposed rule." Id.; see Prop. 218 at 8 (proposed

Section 218.187(b)(3», Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section 219.187(b)(3».

Solvent Substitution. The Agency notes that the CTG recommends the use oflow vapor

pressure solvents because "the slower evaporation reduces the amount ofVOM released into the

atmosphere." TSD at II. The Agency states that its proposal reflects the recommended limit of

8 mm Hg at 20 degrees Celsius in place of 50 grams ofVOM per liter of cleaning material. Id.;

see Prop. 218 at 8 (proposed Section 218.187(b)(2», Prop. 219 at 8 (proposed Section

2l9187(b)(2».

The Agency claims that sources can also reduce YOM emissions with the use oflowYOM or no-YOM solvents. TSD at 10. The Agency notes that "[t]he CTG recommends a

content limit of 50 grams YOM per liter (0.42 Ib/gal) of cleaning material for those industries

that are not already covered, or to be covered, by a CTG." Id, citing Control Techniques

Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006. Specifically, the Agency states

that the CTG proposes to exclude "certain categories fr<;>m the cleaning regulations, as these

categories already have or will have their own recommended work practices and limitations."

TSD at 11. The Agency further states that

[t]hese categories include coating operations for aerospace, wood furniture, flat

wood paneling, large appliance, metal furniture, plastic parts, paper film and foil,

miscellaneous metal parts, auto and light-duty truck assembly, and shipbuilding

and repair; flexible packaging printing materials; lithographic printing materials;

letterpress printing materials; fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and

miscellaneous industrial adhesives." Id., see Prop. 218 at 5-6 (proposed Section

21 8. 187(a)(2)(B», Prop. 219 at 4-5 (proposed Section 21 9. 187(a)(2)(B».

The Agency also states that, as a result of discussions with industry, other states, and USEPA, it

proposes to add additional "exemptions and highcr YOM content limits for certain specific

cleaning activities." TSD at 10. The Agency suggests that it offers these additional exemptions
49

for categories that may not be able easily to meet proposed YOM content limits. Id. at II.

These exemptions

include electrical and electronic components; precision optics; numismatic dies;

stripping of cured inks, coatings, and adhesives; cleaning ofresin, coating, ink,

and adhesive mixing, molding, and application equipment; research and

development laboratories; medical device or pharmaceutical manufacturing; and

performance or quality assurance testing of coatings, inks, or adhesives. Further

exclusion recommendation include cleaning ofpaper-based gaskets and clutch

assemblies; cleaning of adhesive application equipment used for thin metal

laminating; touch-up cleaning on circuit boards; cleaning of coating and adhesive

application processes utilized to manufacture transdermal drug delivery product

using less than three gallons per day of ethyl acetate; cleaning of application

equipment used to apply coatings on satellites and radiation effect coatings;

cleaning of application equipment used to apply solvent-borne fluoropolymer

coatings; cleaning of ultraviolet or electron beam adhesive application; and

cleaning of electrical cables. Jd. at 11-12; see Prop. 218 at 6-7 (proposed Section

2l8.187(a)(2)(C)), Prop. 219 at 5-6 (proposed Section 219.1 87(a)(2)(C).

Flat Wood Paneling Coating Lines

The Agency states that the CTG refers to three options for controlling YOM emissions

from flat wood paneling coating operations: reformulation, add-on controls, or work practices.

TSD at 12 (§3.5); SR at 10.

Material Reformnlation. The Agency states that reformulation involves replacing highYOM coatings with low-YOM coatings. TSD at 12. Citing the CTG, the Agency argues that

"water-based coatings 'are generally available' and 'can lower [YOM] emissions greatly, and

most coatings operations are capable of converting to waterborne coatings.'" Id., citing Control

Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006. The Agency

further argues that sources can reformulate by using "coatings that emit almost zero YOM and

are cured through the use of ultraviolet light or an electron beam." TSD at 12. The Agency

acknowledges that "[t]he use ofsuch systems are more limited than those for waterbased

coatings, but they are available." Id.

Add-On Controls. The Agency claims that, when a source uses high-YOM coatings, it

can used add-on controls. TSD at 12. Citing its experience with a range of coating operations,

the Agency agrees with the CTG that "an overall control and capture efficiency of 90 percent is a

widely-accepted and readily available technique." Id., citing Control Techniques Guidelines for

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir

Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006.

Work Practices. The Agency notes that
50

[t]he CTG recommends specific work practice requirements for flat wood

paneling coating operations: storing all [YOM] coatings, thinners, and cleaning

materials in close containers, minimizing spills of [YOM] containing coatings,

thinners, cleaning up spills immediately, conveying any coatings, thinners, and

cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes, closing mixing vessels which

contain [YOM] coatings and other materials except when specifically in use, and

minimizing emissions of [YOM] during cleaning ofstorage, mixing, and

conveying equipment." TSD at 12, citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat

Wood Paneling Coatings, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office

ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006.

The Agency states that Illinois has already adopted some ofthese requirements through

regulations for wood furniture coaters. TSD at 12. The Agency further states that its proposal

will apply those requirements and other specific requirements to flat wood paneling coaters. !d.

Flexible Packaging Printing Lines

The Agency states that YOM emissions from flexible package printing operations stem

largely from evaporation ofinks, coatings, and adhesives, and from the use of cleaning materials.

TSD at 9 (§3.3). The Agency argues that these emissions can be controlled through material

reformulation, add-on controls, and work practices. Id. at 9-10; see SR at 10.

Material Reformulation. This control substitutes high-YOM inks, coatings, and

adhesives with low-YOM versions ofthose materials. TSD at 9. Citing the CTG, the Agency

argues that "such reformulation 'has been achieved by any facilities in the packaging rotogravure

and flexographic printing industries. '" Id., citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible

Package Printing, United State Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning

and Standards, September 2006. The Agency acknowledges that "[w]hether a particular facility

is able to use such reformulated material depends upon their specific activities, including the

substrate(s) being used." TSD at 9.

Add-On Controls. The Agency states that all flexible packaging printers can use add-on

controls. TSD at 9. The Agency argues that "[t]he most common control devices used by these

sources are thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and carbon adsorbers, with adsorbers probably

being the least-used ofthe three." Id. The Agency agrees with the CTG that "[t]oday, these

control devices can achieve at least 95 percent control device efficiency." Id., citing Control

Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing. United State Environmental Protection

Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006.

The Agency also describes capture systems, which collect air containing YOM "so it may

be destroyed or reclaimed by the control device...." TSD at 9. The Agency notes that, "[w]hile

new presses may be able to obtain as high as I00 percent capture if designed properly, older

presses were not necessarily constructed with emissions capture in mind." Id. The Agency

proposes a tiered approach to capture efficiency based on the construction date ofthe printing

line and the control device. !d.; see Prop. 218 at 63-64 (proposed Section 218.401 (c)(3», Prop.

219. at 62 (proposed Section 219.401(c)(3).
51

Work Practices. 11le Agency notes that the CTG "recommcnds work practice

requirements as the best means to control emissions from cleaning operations at flexible package

printing sources." TSD at 10. The Agency lists some of these practices: "keeping solvent

containers closed except when filling, draining or conducting cleaning operations, keeping used

shop towels in closed containers, and conveying cleaning materials from one location to another

in closed containers or pipes." ld., citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flcxible Package

Printing, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and

Standards, September 2006.

Lithographic Printing Lines

The Agency addresses three options for regulating YOM emissions from lithographic

printing lines: add-on controls, fountain solution reformulation and process modification, and

material reformulation or substitntion for cleaning solutions. TSD at 7-8 (§3.1); see SR at 10.

Add-On Controls. The Agency states that add-on controls apply only to heatset web

offset lithographic printing and not to non-heatset or sheet-fed lithographic printing. TSD at 7.

The Agency further states that these add-on controls fall into two broad categories: combustion

control devices "dcsigned to destroy YaMs in the vent stream prior to atnlospheric discharge"

and recovery devices that "limit YOM emissions by recovering material for reuse." ld. The

Agency indicates that heatset web offset lithographic printers use three add-on controls: thermal

afterburners, catalytic afterburners, and condenser filter systems. ld. The Agency's experience

leads it to conclude "that the field is dominated by thermal and catalytic afterburners, which can

often achieve 98 percent or greater YOM remova1." ld. The Agency also reports that condenser

filter systems have been designed specifically for heatset web offset printers with efficiency as

high as 97 percent remova1. ld.

Fountain Solution Reformulation and Process Modifications. The Agency argues that

"[a] significant portion ofYOM emissions from lithographic printing can be ascribed to

evaporation from fountain solutions." TSD at 8. The Agency states that substitntes reduce or

replace alcohol in fountain solutions. ld. The Agency further states that the substitntes have

lower volatility and reduce emissions. ld.

The Agency characterizes process modifications as "changes in operational methods or

equipment resulting in improved YOM control." TSD at 8. The Agency names cooling fountain

solution to minimize evaporation as one process modification that reduces YOM emissions. ld.

The Agency claims that the use of refrigerated circulators to cool fountain solution "has been

shown to reduce consumption of alcohol in the solution by as much as 44 percent." ld.

Although process modification may involve retrofitting or replacing existing equipment, the

Agency "does not expect retrofitting or replacement to be an issue with this rulemaking." ld.

Material Reformulation or Substitution for Cleaning Solutions. The Agency

describes two reformulations to reduce YOM emissions from cleaning solutions. First, sources

can use solutions containing a smaller amount ofYOM. TSD at 8. Current Illinois regulations

now limit these solutions to no more than 30 percent YOM by weight. ld.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code
52

218.407(a)(4)(A)(i); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.407(a)(4)(A)(i). The Agency rcports that, "[w]hile

no problems with this limit have been reported to Agency personnel in Illinois, there have

apparently been complaints on a national level." TSD at 8. The Agency notes that "the CTG

now recommends limiting such solutions to 70 percent VOM." !d., citing Control Techniques

Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September

2006. The Agency proposes to apply "this higher limit for sources between 15 and 100 pounds

per day (PPD), with the previous limit remaining in effect for larger sources." TSD at 8; see

Prop. 218 at 88 (proposed Section 2l8.407(a)(4)(A»; Prop. 219 at 87 (proposed Section

219.407(a)(4)(A)).

Second, the Agency reports that sources can rely on cleaning solution with a low vapor

pressure. TSD at 8. Citing the CTG, the Agency states that "[c]leaning solutions with [YOM]

composite vapor pressure less than I0 millimeters ofmercury (mm Hg) at 20·C have been used

successfully by many printers for blanket washing and other cleaning activities. Jd., citing

Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, United

States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

September 2006. The Agency further states that, before Il1inois adopted its previous lithographic

printing rules, USEPA determined that the use ofsuch materials results in emission reductions

comparable "to using cleaning materials that contain less than 30 weight percent VOM." TSD at

8. Because the Agency believes that sources now use these materials without difficulty, it

proposes not to amend the limit but to apply it to smaller sources. Jd.; see Prop. 218 at 79

(proposed Section 218.405(c)(3)(C); Prop. 219 at 78 (proposed Section219.405(c)(3)(C).

Letterpress Printing

The Agency states that the sources ofVOM emissions from letterpress printing are

similar to those for lithographic printing, except "that letterpress operations do not use a fountain

solution." TSD at 9; SR at 10. The Agency further states that "letterpress printing presses are

often operated at the same source as lithographic printing[,] and many ofthe control options for

letterpress printing are the same as the control options for lithographic printing," particularly

with regard to cleaning solutions. TSD at 9.

Arguing that "letterpress operations have never been specifically regulated in Illinois

before, thc Agency is proposing to use the 70 percent YOM content limit for all subject

letterpress units." TSD at 9; see Prop. 218 at 115 (proposed Section 218.4I3(a)(2», Prop. 219 at

115-16 (proposed Section 219.413(a)(2». The Agency indicates on the basis of communication

with industry representatives "that Illinois does not currently contain any heatset web letterpress

operations in either the Chicago or Metro-East NAA. ..." TSD at 9. The Agency argues,

however, that "the regulation is necessary and technically feasible should a new such operation

locate in onc ofthe NAAs." Jd.

Economic Reasonableness

In its Technical Support Document, the Agency addresses the economic reasonableness

of various approaches to controlling YOM emissions from Group II product categories. See
53

TSD at 13-15. The Agency argues that the control techniques described above "are

economically reasonable, particularly as many ofthe techniques are already widely used by the

affected industries" SR at 10. In the subsections below, the Board addresses the record on the

issue ofthe economic reasonableness of those techniques.

Industrial Cleaning Solvents

The Agency cites USEPA's estimate that the proposed regulation would affect 130

Illinois sources with baseline YOM emissions of2528 tons per year. TSD at 14 (§4.4) (referring

to 2002 National Emissions Inventory database). The Agency also notes USEPA's

determination that "the cost effectiveness ofmeeting the 50 grams ofVOM per liter of cleaning

material limit for a parts cleaner at $1 664/ton based on a study provided by the California Bay

Area Air Quality Management District." TSD at 14. The Agency indicates that sources

switching from high-YOM content solvents to low-YOM content solvents may realize savings of

$1325/ton because oflower disposal costs. !d.

.Flat Wood Paneling Coating Lines

The Agency notes that USEPA relied upon data from the South Coast Air Quality

Management District of California to estimate cost effectiveness "of between $1,900 and $2,600

per ton ofYOM reduced (in 2005 dollars)." TSD at 14 (§4.5). The Agency also cites the CTG

to indicate that Illinois sources subject to the proposed rule could incur costs to make their

coatings compliant. Id. at 14-15, citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling

Coatings, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and

Standards, September 2006. The Agency concludes that "the only significant cost is expected to

be reformulation of coatings." TSD at 15.

Flexible Packaging Printing Lines

The Agency cites the CTG to claim that "[m]any facilities located in ozone

nonattainment areas are already meeting the control levels being recommended in this CTG."

TSD at 14 (§4.3), citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing, United

States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

September 2006. The Agency argues that

this proposal does not expand the number ofsources that will be subject to the ink

or control device portions ofthe flexible packaging rotogravure and flexographic

printing regulations. It is expected that those sources currently able to use

compliant inks and coatings will similarly be able to make use ofinks and

coatings meeting the new compliance limit, while those using add-on control

devices will continue to do so as well. As such, the llIinois EPA expects that

there will not be any additional add-on control costs for subject facilities. TSD at

14.

The Agency cites the CTG to state that sources installing add-on control devices will face costs

that vary based on operating factors. Id. The Agency cites the CTG to estimate that '''a press
54

. exhausting approximately 5,800 cubic feet per minute, operating 2000 hours per year, and

achieving 70 percent capture efficiency' would have a cost of between $1,300 and $2,800 per ton

of YOM removed." ld., citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing,

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

September 2006. The Agency argues that factors including more operating hours would lower

the cost per ton of YOM removed. TSD at 14.

Addressing the cleaning provisions ofits proposal, the Agency expects "minimal" costs

for sources becoming subject to those regulations. TSD at J4. The Agency argues that "some

sources may see an overall costs savings as less cleaning solution 1S necessary." ld.

Lithographic Printing Lines

The Agency argues that "[t]he largest cost factor for lithographic printing -- add-on

controls - is applicable to heatset web lithographic operations only. Since the Agency's proposal

does not increase the number ofsources for which this requirement is applicable, there is no

foreseen additional cost due to add-on controls for existing sources." TSD at 13 (§4.1).

Although the Agency acknowledges that new sources will be subject to a higher control

efficiency, it expects new control devices to achieve that efficiency. ld. The Agency argues that

"no additional cost is expected for this reason either." ld.

The Agency states that its proposal could result in costs for newly-regulated sources

emitting between 15 and 100 pounds per day of YOM. TSD at 13. The Agency reports that

"USEPA estimated the cost for cleaning material refonnulation at $855 per ton of YOM

removed (in 2005 dollars)." ld., citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic

Printing and Letterpress Printing, Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir

Quality Planning and Standards, September 2006.

The Agency notes that USEPA projects a costs savings with fountain solutions because

ofreduced alcohol use. TSD at 13. The Agency indicates that, although USEPA has not

specifically estimated the amount of these savings, it notes that "the TSD for the Illinois

lithographic printing rule in 1994 put this savings at $920 per ton. ld. The Agency explains that,

"while alcohol substitutes are more expensive, the cost is reduced because they are used in lower

quantities." ld., citing Technical Support Document for Controlling YOM Emissions from

Lithographic Printing Operations, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, October 1994.

Letterpress Printing

The Agency cites the CTG to state that,

[b]ecause of the similarities between offset lithographic printing and letterpress

printing in tenns ofthe nature ofthe processes at issue, the sources of[YOM]

emissions and available control approaches, it is reasonable to assume that the

cost-effectiveness estimates ... for control of [YOM] from heatset inks and

control of[YOM] from cleaning materials apply equally to the letterpress printing

industry. TSD at 13 ('14.2), citing Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset
55

lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September

2006.

The Agency acknowledges that, because Illinois does not now regulate heatset web letterpress

printing operations, "the reasoning behind the zero cost estimate for heatset web lithographic

printing" does not apply to letterpress printing. TSD at 13. The Agency notes the CTG's

estimate of$2,010 per ton ofVOM removed in 2005 dollars as the cost-effectiveness for this

category. Id. However, the Agency emphasizes that there are not now any heatset web

letterpress operations in either of the Illinois NAAs. Id.

Summarv and Findings

Although the Board in a letter dated August 6, 2009, requested that DCEO conduct an

economic impact study on the Agency's amended rulemaking proposal (see 415 ILCS 5/27(b)(1)

(2008)), the Board to date has received no response to that request. At the second hearing, the

Board received no testimony or comment regarding the absence of any response to the request.

See Tr.2 at 8-9.

In his pre-filed testimony on behalf of the Agency, Mr. Bloomberg states that "[t]he

Agency agrees with USEPA that all ofthe proposed changes are technically feasible and

economically reasonable." Bloomberg Test. at 8. No participant has offered evidence or

arguments rebutting this position. Having reviewed the record on the issues of feasibility and

reasonableness, the Board finds it that the Agency's proposal, as amended by two motions to

amend, is both technically feasible and economically reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The Board proposes for first notice amendments to its regulations governing YOM

emissions in Parts 211,218 and 219 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, 219). Substantively, the Board

is adopting the Agency's proposal including changes reflected in two Agency motions to amend

granted by the Board. See Mot. Amend I, Mot. Amend 2.

Publication ofthe proposed amendment in the Illinois Register will start a period of at

least 45 days during which any person may file public comments with the Clerk ofthe Board at

the address provided above in this opinion. As noted above, persons may also file comments

electronically through COOL at www.ipcb.state:iJ.us.

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to cause first-notice publication ofthe following proposed

amendments to Parts 211, 218, and 219 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations in the Illinois

Register. Proposed additions to Parts 211, 218, and 219 are underlined, and proposed deletions

appear stricken.