Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 I~ 

I EPA ATTACHMENT NO.-

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MAlTER OF: 

PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL ADM. CODE PART 218 

SUBPARTTT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS2011-00I 

(Adjusted Standard- Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

TO: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Charles Matoesian 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed electronically with the Office oft he 

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, Petitioners' NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC 

FILING, REDACTED SUBMISSION OF NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION and 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, copies of which are attached herewith and served upon you. 

Date: December 8, 20 II 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Susan Charles 

ICE MILLER LLP 

200 West Madison Street 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Respectfully submitted, 

GREIF, INC. and GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

By: /s/ Susan Charles 

One of its Attomcys 

1 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADillSTED STANDARD FROM 

351LL ADM. CODE PART218 

SUBPART IT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 2011-001 

(Adjusted Standard- Air) 

REnACTED SUBMISSION OF NON-mSCLOSABLE INFORMATION 

Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404(c)(4), petitioners Greif, Inc. and Greif 

Packaging, LLC ("Greif') are filing a redacted copy of a document, portions of which Greif is 

· seeking to protect from public disclosure. In connection with this submission Grief states the 

following: 

I. On December 8, 2011 Greif filed an Application for Treatment as NonDisclosable Information ("Application") with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. 

2. The Application seeks to protect only portions of a document from disclosure. 

3. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404(c)(4), when a party seeks to 

protect less than an entire document from disclosure, the applicant must, among other things, 

"(f]ile with the Clerk a second copy of the article that is marked pursuant to subsections (c)(!) 

and (c)(2) of this Section and from which the page or portion sought to be protected from 

disclosure is deleted." 

4. A redacted copy of the relevant document is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 

Date: December 8, 20 II 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Susan Charles 

ICE MILLER LLP 

200 West Madison Street 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Respectfully submitted, 

GREJF, INC. and GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

By: /s/ Susan Charles 

One of its Attorneys 

2 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 

NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION- AT PAGE 2 OF 3. 

Response of Gr.cif Paclmging LLC to 

Hearing Questions for Petitioner and IEPA Served on November 8. 2011 

Prepared by Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE 

On November ll, 2011, the Heating Officer served on Greif and the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency three pre-heating questions on the Final Air Quality Impact 

Analysis of the VOC Emissions from the GrcifPackaging Facility in Naperville, Jllinois, Using 

the Scheffe Tables (AQIA Analysis). I prepared the AQIA Analysis, and following are my 

responses to those questions. 

Question A: Calculation ofVOC Emissions for the Air Quality Impact 

The first question essentially asked whether the AQIA Analysis had overestimated the 

projected difference in VQC emissions between compliance with Subpart TT and cumplianee 

with the proposed adjusted standard. It also suggested an alternate formula for calculating the 

ditletence. The AQIA Analysis was prepared in response to a Heating Otlicer order requesting 

that Greif prepare an ambient air quality impact analysis considering the "worst ·case scenario, 

using the maximum pem1itted VOM emissions" to "quantify the difference in emissions that 

would occur if Greif complied with" the ptoposed adjusted standard rather than Subpart TT. 

Developing a "worst case" analysis requires hypothesizing aitemate operating scenarios 

and implicitly what the emissions could be under either alternate scenario. In some sense, the 

difference could be zero. Subpart TT does not cap annual emissions and the proposed adjusted 

standard caps annual emissions at the same level as the facility's FESOP. Because. the FESOP 

limit would also apply if the facility complied with Subpart TT, under either scenario, the 

maximum annual emissions are 22.8 tpy and the difference is zero. The weakness of this 

approach is that for any particular production level that yields emissions bdow 22:8 tpy, there 

would be an actual difference in projected emissions greater than zero. 

Question A suggested calculating the emission differential usingthe following formula: 

[22.8 tpy*(l-.73l)J-[22.8 tpy*(l-.81)] = 1.8 tpy 

Where 22.8 tpy is the maximum permitted VOC emissions; 

.731 is the projected emissions reductions from the adjusted standard; and 

.81 is the emissions reductions required by Subpart TT. 

TI1is approach has some basis in the FESOP because the FESOP not only limits VOC emissions 

to 22.8 tpy but also limits VOC usage to 22.8 tpy. But, the VOC usage limitation in the FESOP 

was tied to the fact that the Naperville facility had no emissions control devices. If the facility 

installed an oxidizer or other technology to comply with Subpart TT, then the FESOP would 

probably be amended to eliminate the VOC usage limitation and simply rely upon the VOC 

emission limitation to maintain the facility's minor source status. This approach also misapplies 

the 73.1% reduction in VOC usage from the adjusted standard because that is a per unit 

1 

E:XlUHlT 1 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 

NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION 

reduction- not a reduction that applies after VOC usage. The formula proposed in QL1cstion A 

also leads to odd results. The first bracket of the formula computes the post-adjusted standard 

emissions as !\.13 tpy, and the second bracket compute.~ the hypothetical emissions fro111 

complying with Subpart 'IT as 4.33 tpy. The difference between these is I .S tpy, but calculating 

an ozone increment based on these estimates does not make sense. As reflected in the amended 

petition for the adjusted standard, Grcifs emissions from the QC Test Station for 2009 and 2010 

arc 7.7 and 8.95 tpy, respectively. The emission estimates resulting from the fonnula in 

Question A are below these actual emissions and should logically result in a decrease in ozone 

formation- not an increase. For these reasons, the approach suggested in Question A docs not 

seem to truly be a "worst case" analysis. 

The AQIA Analysis calculated the emission differential using the following formula: 

[22.8 tpy/(1-.731 )]*(.81 -.731) = 6.7 tpy 

l selected this approach for the AQlA Analysis for the following reasons. First, J assumed that a 

worst case analysis would involve a revision to the FESOP eliminating the VOC usage 

limitation. ln that event, compliance with the annual emission limit of22.8 tpy could still be 

achieved by complying with the adjusted stat\dard, which has achieved a 73.1% reduction in 

usage ofVOC per lined drum manufactured. Thus, the maximum tons ofVOC usage that would 

need to be controlled if the facility complied with Subpart TT would be approximately 84.8 tpy 

[22.8 tpy/(1-.731 )]. The emissions differential can then be calculated by multiplying the 84.8 tpy 

by the differential in the emissions reduction percentages, as reflected in the fonnula above. 

That this method of calculating-the worst case emission differential reaches the coJTect 

result can be proven in another way. By analyzing the facility's VOC usage per lined drum 

manufactured, we dctcnnincd that the average VOC usage before the changes included in the 

adjusted standard was about -lbs/lined drum (based on data for 2006-2007) and !hal the 

average VOG usage after inlplMtenting the adjusted stanclarcl changes was aboutlbs/lined drum (based on data for 2009-201 0). Using the average usage after implementing the 

adjusted standard changes, we can estimate the implicit limit on lined drum production us 

-per year (22.8 tpy*2000 lbs/ton ~ Jbsllined drum). For this estimated maximum 

lined drum prnduetion, the emission differential can then he easily computed .as follows: 

[_*..,2000]-[-*-*(1-.81)/2000] = 6.7 tpy 

Based on this alternative calculation, I believe the AQIA Analysis correctly estimated the 

maximum differential in emissions for a worst case scenario. 

Question B: Application of the Scheffe Tables 

The second question raised two sub-issues. First, based on the estimated emission 

differential set forth in Question A, the ratio ofNMOC/NOx emissions for the facility would be 

9.036, which would indicate use of column 2 of Sche1fe Table 2, which applies to ratios of 5.2 to 

20.7. The AQTA Analysis had computed a ratio of33.1i3, which indicated use ofeolumn I of 

Scheffe Table 2, which applies to ratios greater than 20.7, For the reasons explained in the 

2 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 

response to Question A, I believe the value in column I applies. But, in this particular instance, 

which column is used does not make a difference because the values in columns I and 2 are the 

same when NMOC emis~ion~ are 50 lpy or less, as they are for the Naperville facility. 

The second issue under Question B related to the interpolation step required by the 

Schcffe approach presented in the AQIA Analysis. The AQlA Analysis did that interpolation 

assuming a linear relationship in the ozone increment value w'hen emissions are between 0 and 

50. Question B analyzed the curves impLicit in Scheffc Table 2, noted that the curves were not 

linear and proposed an alternate forn).ttla for the interpolation. But, Question B also recognized 

that the curves implicit in Scheffe Table 2 did not yield an ozone increment equal to 0 when the 

emissions differential was 0, which was a condition that obviotlsly should be coucct. While the 

fonnula suggested in Question B for calculating the 'intervolation contains more variables, 

because the values selected for some oftlJOse variables is zero, it produces the same result a~ the 

interpolation method used in the AQIA Analysis. For example, for the emission differential of 

6.7 tpy presented in the AQIA Analysis and confinncd above, both formulas result in an ozone 

increment of 1.47 ppb [1.1 pplun*IO ppb/pplnn*6.7tpy/50 tpy, using the AQIA approach, or 

((6. 7-0)*(J.l-0)*1 0/(50-0) + 0), using the fon.nula in Question B.) 

J agree with both fundamental points made i'n Question B: the relationship between 

NMOC emissions and the ratio ofNMOC!NOx emissions implicit in Schcffc Table 2 is not 

linear and the ozone increment should obviously be 0 if the emissions differential is 0. The 

second point essentially recognizes that the ozone increments in Schcffe Table 2 are not well 

defined bClow 50 tpy ofNMOC emissions. A linear interpolation may overestimate or 

underestimate the actual increment, but it seems a fair middle point to assume in the absence of 

real data. Given that the formula for calculating the interpolation in Question B computes the 

~ame result as the fonnula used in the AQJA Analysis, it doe~ not matter which approach is used. 

Question C: Impact on Illinois' Abilityto Attain the !-Hour and 8-Hour O:wne NAAQS 

Fimilly Question C asked whether any recalculations of the projected ozone increment 

would itnpact the conclusion of the AQlA Analysis. For the reasons cxplaiiled .above, I believe 

theAQIAAnalysis correctly computed a worst case emission differential and ozone increment 

using the Scheffe method. Accordingly, the simple answer is no. In the AQIA Analysis, I had 

concluded that the ozone increment calculated there of 1.47 ppb would not cause or contribute to 

violations of the NAAQS for ozone or delay efforts to attain the NAAQS in a timely manner. If 

the ozone increment is 0.396 ppb, as suggested by the analysis in Questions A and B, the same 

conclusions would be reached with an even greater margin. 

3 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

!, the undersigned, cetiify that on this 8th day of December, 20 II, l have electronically 

served the attached NOTICE OF FILJNG and REDACTED SUBMISSION OF NONDISCLOSABLE IN FORMA TJON upon the following person: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

and by U.S. Mail, first class posiage prepaid, and electronic mail to the following person: 

CharlcsMatbcsian 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

Is! Susan Charles,__ ___ _ 

Susan Charles 
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 12 I 20 I 2 q&J ATTACHMENT ~~ _ 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MA TIER OF: 

PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL ADM. CODE PART 2I 8 

SUBPARTTT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 2011-001 

(Adjusted Standard - Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

TO: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 6060 I 

Charles Matoesian 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the 

Illinois Pollution Control Board, Petitioners' NOTICE OF FILING, APPLICATION FOR 

TREATMENT AS NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION and CERTIFICATE OF 

SERVICE, copies of which are attached herewith and served upon you. 

Date: December 8, 20 II 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Susan Charles 

ICE MILLER LLP 

200 West Madison Street 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Respectfully submitted, 

GREIF, INC. and GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

By: -(,Ll~,Q<>JXUU..~'\... .>L!.e£,_,.,~~=-­ One of its Attorneys 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MA TIER OF: 

PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL ADM. CODEPART218 

SUBPART IT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 2011-001 

(Adjusted Standard- Air) 

APPLICATION FOR TREATMENT AS NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION 

Petitioners Greif, Inc. and Greif Packaging, LLC ("Greif') seek a determination by the 

Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") pursuant to 35 I.A. C. § 130.406 that certain 

information identified on Exhibit I to this application is entitled to protection from public 

disclosure as "non-disclosable" information. In support of its application Greif states the 

following: 

1. A March 21, 2011 Hearing Officer Order ("Order") directed Greif to provide an 

Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis ("Air Quality Analysis") for ozone to support its proposed 

adjusted standard. 

2. Greif presented the Air Quality Analysis to the Agency for review and comment. 

Counsel for the Agency represented to counsel for Greif that the Agency had no comments to the 

Air Quality Analysis. Greif subsequently filed the Air Quality Analysis with the Board on 

November I, 20 II. 

3. On November 8, 2011, the Hearing Officer served on Greif and the Agency three 

pre-hearing questions on the Air Quality Analysis of the VOC Emissions from the Greif 

Packaging Facility in Naperville, Illinois, Using the Scheffe Tables (the "Questions"). 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

4. A thorough response to the Questions requires a response that includes 

information constituting "confidential data" as described in 415 I.L.C.S. § 5/7(a) and 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code § I 01.202. 

5. The specific information that Greif considers "confidential data" and seeks to 

protect from disclosure includes the average weight ofVOC sprayed into each lined drum as part 

of Greifs QC test process over different time periods and calculations of the maximum 

production capacity of Greifs facility based on those averages. The maximum production 

capacity information is competitive information that Greif treats as confidential business 

information, and the averages ofVOC sprayed per lined drum could be used in conjunction with 

Greifs reported actual emissions to calculate its actual annual production oflined drums. That 

actual production data is also competitive information that Greif treats as confidential business 

information. 

6. Certain individuals within Greif (Khaalis Rahman, Plant Manager, and Scott 

Mounts, Director, Environmental, Health & Safety NA) and Greifs environmental consultant, 

Thomas C. Ponder, are familiar with the data and information sought to be protected from 

disclosure. 

7. Greif always has maintained its annual production data as confidential business 

information. The averages referenced above were previously submitted to the Illinois 

Envirorunental Protection Agency (the "Agency"), and the Agency determined that the averages 

were to be protected from disclosure under its regulations implementing the Illinois Freedom of 

Information Act. Attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 are Greifs letter supporting the confidential 

nature of the data and the Agency's determination according the information protection from 

2 
Electronic Filing~ Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

disclosure. Greif believes that the information contained in the exhibits should be sufficient to 

satisfy the requirements of the Board's regulations. 

8. The non-disclosable information sought to be protected through this application is 

included on the attached Exhibit!. Consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404(a)(l), 

Greif has not redacted the non-disclosable information in Exhibit I. As required by 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code Section 130.404(c)(4), Greif is separately filing a redacted version of Exhibit I with 

the Office of the Clerk of the Board. 

9. Consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404, Greif is serving the Agency 

with a redacted copy of Exhibit I. 

I 0. There is no decision deadline associated with a petition for adjusted standard. See 

35 Ill. Adm. Code Section I 01.308(a). Therefore the waiver of statutory deadline referenced in 

35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404(e)(5) seems to be in applicable and Greif has submitted no 

such waiver. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Greif has demonstrated that the confidential 

business information included on Exhibit I constitutes non-disclosable information entitled to 

protection from public disclosure and seeks a determination from the Board that its nondisclosable information is subject to protection from disclosure under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 

130.406(c). 

Respectfully submitted, 

GREIF, fNC. and GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

By: ...:::..~~~~~=tLu-&<~.=::...___ One of its Attorneys 

3 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

Date: December 8, 2011 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Susan Charles 

ICE MILLER LLP 

200 West Madison Street 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

4 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

l, the undersigned, certify that on this 8th day of December, 20 II, l have served by handdelivery the attached NOTICE OF FILING and APPLICATION FOR TREATMENT AS NONDISCLOSABLE INFORMATION upon the following person: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 6060 I 

and by U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, and electronic mail to the following person: 

Charles Matoesian 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

l 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

~~ Susan Charles 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION -AT PAGE 2 OF 3. 

Response of Greif Packaging LLC to 

Hearing Questions for Petitioner and TEPA Served on November 8, 2011 

Prepared by Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE 

On November 8, 2011, the Hearing Officer served on Greif and the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency three pre-hearing questions on the Final Air Quality Impact 

Analysis of the VOC Emissions from the Greif Packaging Facility in Naperville, Jllinois, Using 

the Scheffe Tables (AQIA Analysis). I prepared the AQIA Analysis, and following are my 

responses to those questions. 

Question A: Calculation ofVOC Emissions for the Air Quality Impact 

The first question essentially asked whether the AQIA Analysis had overestimated the 

projected difference in VOC emissions between compliance with Subpart TT and compliance 

with the proposed adjusted standard. It also suggested an alternate formula for calculating the 

difference. The AQIA Analysis was prepared in response to a Hearing Officer order requesting 

that Greif prepare an ambient air quality impact analysis considering the "worst case scenario, 

using the maximum permitted VOM emissions" to "quantify the difference in emissions that 

would occur if Greif complied with" the proposed adjusted standard rather than Subpart IT. 

Developing a "worst case" analysis requires hypothesizing alternate operating scenarios 

and implicitly what the emissions could be under either alternate scenario. In some sense, the 

difference could be zero. Subpart TT does not cap annual emissions and the proposed adjusted 

standard caps annual emissions at the same level as the facility's FESOP. Because the FESOP 

limit would also apply if the facility complied with Subpart IT, under either scenario, the 

maximum annual emissions are 22.8 tpy and the difference is zero. The weakness of this 

approach is that for any particular production level that yields emissions below 22.8 tpy, there 

would be an actual difference in projected emissions greater than zero. 

Question A suggested calculating the emission differential using the following formula: 

[22.8 tpy*(l-.731))-[22.8 tpy*(!-.81)) = 1.8 tpy 

Where 22.8 tpy is the maximum pennitted VOC emissions; 

.731 is the projected emissions reductions from the adjusted standard; and 

.81 is the emissions reductions required by Subpart IT. 

This approach has some basis in the FESOP because the FESOP not only limits VOC emissions 

to 22.8 tpy but also limits VOC usage to 22.8 tpy. But, the VOC usage limitation in the FESOP 

was tied to the fact that the Naperville facility had no emissions control devices. If the facility 

installed an oxidizer or other technology to comply with Subpart IT, then the FESOP would 

probably be amended to eliminate the VOC usage limitation and simply rely upon the VOC 

emission limitation to maintain the facility's minor source status. This approach also misapplies 

the 73.1% reduction in VOC usage from the adjusted standard because that is a per unit 

I 

EXHIB1Tl 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION 

reduction- not a reduction that applies after VOC usage. The formula proposed in Question A 

also leads to odd results. The first bracket of the formula computes the post-adjusted standard 

emissions as 6.13 tpy, and the second bracket computes the hypothetical emissions from 

complying with Subpart TT as 4.33 tpy. The difference between these is 1.8 tpy, but calculating 

an ozone increment based on these estimates does not make sense. As reflected in the amended 

petition for the adjusted standard, Greifs emissions from the QC Test Station for 2009 and 2010 

are 7.7 and 8.95 tpy, respectively. The emission estimates resulting from the formula in 

Question A are below these actual emissions and should logically result in a decrease in ozone 

formation- not an increase. For these reasons, the approach suggested in Question A does not 

seem to truly be a "worst case" analysis. 

The AQIA Analysis calculated the emission differential using the following formula: 

[22.8 tpy/(1-.731)]*(.81-.731) =6.7 tpy 

I selected this approach for the AQIA Analysis for the following reasons. First, I assumed that a 

worst case analysis would involve a revision to the FESOP eliminating the VOC usage 

limitation. In that event, compliance with the annual emission limit of22.8 tpy could still be 

achieved by complying with the adjusted standard, which has achieved a 73.1% reduction in 

usage of VOC per lined drum manufactured. Thus, the maximum tons of VOC usage that would 

need to be controlled if the facility complied with Subpart TT would be approximately 84.8 tpy 

[22.8 tpy/(1-. 731 )]. The emissions differential can then be calculated by multiplying the 84.8 tpy 

by the differential in the emissions reduction percentages, as reflected in the formula above. 

That this method of calculating the worst case emission differential reaches the correct 

result can be proven in another way. By analyzing the facility's VOC usage per lined drum 

manufactured, we determined that the average VOC usage before the changes included in the 

adjusted standard was about -lbs/lined drum (based on data for 2006-2007) and that the 

average VOC usage after implementing the adjusted standard changes was aboutlbsllined drum (based on data for 2009-201 0). Using the average usage after implementing the 

adjusted standard changes, we can estimate the implicit limit on lined drum production as 

-per year (22.8 tpy*2000 lbs/ton ~ lbsllined drum). For this estimated maximum 

lined drum production, the emission differential can then be easily computed as follows: 

[-*~2000]- [-*-*(1-.81)/2000] = 6.7 tpy 

Based on this alternative calculation, I believe the AQIA Analysis correctly estimated the 

maximum differential in emissions for a worst case scenario. 

Question B: Application of the Scheffe Tables 

The second question raised two sub-issues. First, based on the estimated emission 

differential set forth in Question A, the ratio ofNMOC/NOx emissions for the facility would be 

9.036, which would indicate use of column 2 of Scheffe Table 2, which applies to ratios of 5.2 to 

20.7. The AQIA Analysis had computed a ratio of 33.63, wlllch indicated use of column I of 

Scheffe Table 2, which applies to ratios greater than 20.7. For the reasons explained in the 

2 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

response to Question A, I believe the value in column 1 applies. But, in this particular instance, 

which column is used does not make a difference because the values in columns I and 2 are the 

same when NMOC emissions are 50 tpy or less, as they are for the Naperville facility. 

The second issue under Question B related to the interpolation step required by the 

Scheffe approach presented in the AQIA Analysis. The AQIA Analysis did that interpolation 

assuming a linear relationship in the ozone increment value when emissions are between 0 and 

50. Question B analyzed the curves implicit in Scheffe Table 2, noted that the curves were not 

linear and proposed an alternate formula for the interpolation. But, Question B also recognized 

that the curves implicit in Scheffe Table 2 did not yield an ozone increment equal to 0 when the 

emissions differential was 0, which was a condition that obviously should be correct. While the 

formula suggested in Question B for calculating the .interpolation contains more variables, 

because the values selected for some of those variables is zero, it produces the same result as the 

interpolation method used in the AQIA Analysis. For example, for the emission differential of 

6.7 tpy presented in the AQIA Analysis and confirmed above, both formulas result in an ozone 

increment of 1.47 ppb [1.1 pphm*l 0 ppb/pphm*6.7 tpy/50 tpy, using the AQIA approach, or 

((6.7-0)*(1.1-0)*10/(50-0) + 0), using theformula in Question B.] 

I agree with both fundamental points made in Question B: the relationship between 

NMOC emissions and the ratio ofNMOC/NOx emissions implicit in Scheffe Table 2 is not 

linear and the ozone increment should obviously be 0 if the emissions differential is 0. The 

second point essentially recognizes that the ozone increments in Scheffe Table 2 are not well 

defined below 50 tpy ofNMOC emissions. A linear interpolation may overestimate or 

underestimate the actual increment, but it seems a fair middle point to assume in the absence of 

real data. Given that the formula for calculating the interpolation in Question B computes the 

same result as the formula used in the AQIA Analysis, it does not matter which approach is used. 

Question C: Impact on Illinois' Ability to Attain the !-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Finally Question C asked whether any recalculations of the projected ozone increment 

would impact the conclusion of the AQIA Analysis. For the reasons explained above, I believe 

the AQIA Analysis correctly computed a worst case emission differential and ozone increment 

using the Scheffe method. Accordingly, the simple answer is no. In the AQIA Analysis, I had 

concluded that the ozone increment calculated there of 1.47 ppb would not cause or contribute to 

violations of the NAAQS for ozone or delay efforts to attain the NAAQS in a timely manner. If 

the ozone increment is 0.396 ppb, as suggested by the analysis in Questions A and B, the same 

conclusions would be reached with an even greater margin. 

3 
·' _, · '-:.J:lectronic F'iling- Received, Clerk's Office, l'2/20/2011 

ICEMILL·ERLLP . LEGAL COUNSEL 

May 2, 2011 

Via Email and First Class Mail 

Mr. Michael E. Dura 

Illinois Envirorunental Protection Agency 

Michael.Dura@illinois.gov 

I 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

'2:00 W. MADISON ST. 

Sum JSOO 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605-3417 

WRITER'S 0JR.ECTNUMDER: (312) 726-7\25 

DIRICTFAX: (312) 126-S\0) 

!NTERNCT: Thom<u.Dimond@icemillt-r.com 

RE: Notice of Incompleteness ("NOI") of Claim to be Exempt from 

Public Disclosure 

043467AAA-DuPage 

Naperville- Grief Packaing LLC 

Dear Michael: 

I have reviewed your letter dated April 18, 2011 stating that my claim on behalf of Greif 

Packaging LLC and Greif, Inc. (f/k/a Greif Bros. Corp) (collectively, "Greif') for a part 

of a record to be exempt from public disclosure is incomplete. This letter will provide 

additional supporting information for the asserted claim for the record to be exempt from 

public disclosure. During follow-up telephone conversations, you have indicated that our 

response to your April 18 letter is due 10 business days following our receipt of t~_A-R.ril_ 

18 letter even though the last paragraph of the letter indicates the confidentiality claim 

will be denied if no response is submitted within 10 business days of the date ofthat 

letter. Your letter was not received until April21, but we are submitting our response 

today to avoid any issue with the timeliness of our response. 

Below, the portions of2lll. Adm. Code Section 1828.401 for which the NOI states my 

confidential business information claim is deficient are set forth in italics followed by the 

responsive information in regular type face. 

Section 1828.401 (b)(2)(B).· 

B) If the submit/a/ is not a subsequent version of a public record previously granted 

exempt status by the Agency, the following information: 

i) Measures taken by the submiller to prevent disclosure of the public 

record; 

ii) The rights of privacy, if any, that might be an unwarranted invasion of 

EXHIBIT2 

CHICAGO I DUPAGE COUNTY, IlliNOIS I INDIANAPOLIS I WASHINGTON DC www.iccmilkr.com 
i > , 

Electronic F'iling- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

Mr. Michael E. Dura 

Environmental Protection Agency 

May 2, 2011 

Page2 

personal privacy by disclosure of the public record; 

iii) The competitive value, if any, of the public record to the submitter; and 

iv) Any other information that will support the claim for exemption from 

disclosure; 

From the NOI, it is not clear why the Agency found the asserted claim deficient under 

Section 1828.40 I (b )(2)(8). As indicated in my March 29 letter, Greif maintains this 

information and does not disclose it outside the company. This should satisfy subsection 

(i). Arid, we also explained that the information would be valuable to Greif's competitors 

because they could use it to perform analyses of the market and better inform their 

decisions as to whether or not to enter a market and directly compete with Greif. That 

would seem to satisfy subpart (iii). Because subpart (ii) seems to address privacy rights 

established by constitutions or statutes, e.g., a claim as to privacy of personal medical 

records, rather than business privacy claims, it seemed inapplicable to Greif's claim. 

And, subpart (iv) is simply a catchall. Moreover, nothing in Section 1828.401(b)(2)(B) 

suggests that every claimant must submit information addressing every subpart of 

1828.401(b)(2)(B). Indeed, that would seem impossible, because a claimant asserting a 

medical privacy claim would likely have no information to submit on subpart (iii) related 

to competitive value of the information. 

While Greif believes that the March 29 letter adequately satisfied the requirements of 

Section 1828.40l(b)(2)(B), we are providing the additional information below in support 

of our claim for confidential business information protection for the record at issue. As 

to subpart (i), the information in the record that is claimed as confidential is stored in 

electronic systems and databases created and maintained by Greif. Those systems and 

databases are only accessible through authorized computer terminals (either located at 

Greiffacilities or laptops authorized by Greif) and users must have been granted access 

and have established a secure password in order to access the systems and databases. Not 

all Greif employees are granted access to these computer systems. For example, many of 

the hourly compensated employees do not have access. The information in the record 

claimed as confidential can be printed on various reports from the systems and databases, 

however, those reports are also maintained as confidential information within the 

company. Finally, Greif's employee manuals, including those specifically related to the 

Naperville facility, inform employees that maintaining the confidentiality of certain 

information is crucial to the interests and success of Greif and that failure to maintain the 

confidentiality of that information may result in disciplinary sanctions, including possibly 

termination. Among the categories of information deemed confidential are computer 

processes and financial information, both of which encompass the information that Greif 

has claimed to be confidential in the record at issue. Additionally, all employees that 

have access to Greif's computer systems must execute a Confidentiality and Proprietary 

Rights Agreement that requires them to maintain the confidentiality of company 
. . I 

Electronic Piling- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 

Mr. Michael E. Dura 

Environmental Protection Agency 

May2, 2011 

Page 3 

infonnation, including information on sales and unpublished financial statements and 

information. 

As to subpart (ii), while it seems inapplicable to Greifs claim, we would observe that 

every company has the right to protect its confidential business information from 

disclosure to its competitors- or at least there is no general constitutional or statutory 

prohibition on the protection of such information. As to subpart (iii), we reiterate that 

Greifs competitors would find the annual production data useful for analyzing the 

production capabilities of the Naperville facility in the upper Midwest region. That 

information could be useful to Greifs competitors in making market entry, pricing or 

other business decisions that could adversely impact the profitability of the Naperville 

plant. 

Taken together, the information submitted above should be sufficient to satisfy the 

requirements of Section 1828.40l(b)(2)(B) and extend exemption from public disclosure 

to the identified information in the record submitted by Greif. 

Section 1828.40l(b){4).· 

4) If the submitter is currently a party in a proceeding before the Board or a court in 

which the iriformation is relevant to the issues, the title of the proceeding, docket 

number, and if applicable, identification of the court. 

My March 29, 2011 letter referenced that the document was submitted in connection with 

the proceeding in the matter of Petition of Greif Packaging for an Adjusted Standard, 

ASll-1, which is a proceeding before the Illinois Pollution Control Board.("Board") and 

we thought this satisfied this requirement. To avoid any ambiguity, the full name of that 

matter is In the Matter of Petition of Greif Inc. and Greif Packaging LLC for an 

Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart TT, ASll-1, which is 

pending before the Board and in which the Greif entities are parties. While we take no 

position as to whether the record or the information in it is actually relevant to that 

proceeding, the above information should fully satisfy Section 1828.40l(b)(4). 

Section 1828.401 (c)(2)(A), (B) & (D). 

c) The submitter must mark a public record or portions thereof claimed exempt from 

disclosures as follows: 

2) Where less than the entire public record is claimed to be exempt from public 

disclosure: 

A) Mark the public record with the words Public Record Claimed Exempt-inPart in red ink on the face or front of the public record. if submitted in 

electronic format, the public record must clearly be marked in bold at the 

top or front of the public record with the words Public Record Claimed 

Exempt-in-Part; 

B) Indicate on the face or beginning of the public records which portion of 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12!20/2011 

Mr. Michael E. Dura 

Environmental Protection Agency 

May 2, 2011 

Page 4 

the public record is claimed to be exempt from disclosure; 

* • • 

D) Furnish the Agency with a second copy oft he public record that is marked 

in accordance with (A) and (B) of this subsection and from which the 

portion of the public record that is claimed to be exempt from disclosure is 

deleted. 

Your letter does not explain in what manner the submitted document was not marked in 

accordance with Section 1828.40l(c)(2)(A), (B) and (D). Nor have we been able to 

identify any deficiency. The record in question was submitted electronically by email so 

that the "red ink" requirement of subpart (A) does not apply. In accordance with subpart 

(A), the record was marked in bold in the upper right hand corner with the words Public 

Record Claimed Exempt- in Part. The record also identifies by yellow shading which 

portion of the record is claimed to be exempt from disclosure, which should satisfy 

subpart (B). Finally, consistent with subpart (D), we provided the Agency with a second 

copy of the record that is also marked in bold with the words Public Record Claimed 

Exempt- in Part, that indicates what pmiion is considered exempt and that omits the 

information claimed as exempt. This should satisfy subpart (D). After you review the 

documents submitted again, if it appears they are not marked as required by Section 

l828.40l(c), please advise me as to the specific deficiency, and we would be happy to 

correct it. 

We appreciate your review of our confidential business information claim for a portion of 

this record to be exempt from disclosure. If you have any further questions or believe our 

claim is still deficient in some way, please contact me. 

Sincerely, 

----/: --~~:-.- c::--:·~- .......... _.., 

/. t'UhN'-;}--- /<) :~-s~~d:i-'""''---------) 

Thomas W. Dimond 

TWD/vw 
I" .-· 

.~zectfu~!j~NM~At> P.t«M;LlltA0N'MENCY 

1021 Norlh Grand Avenue Easl, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 • (217) 782-2829 

James R. Thompson Cenler, 100 Wesl Randolph, Suile 11-300, Chicago, IL 60601 • (312) 814·6026 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR 

June I, 2011 

Ice Miller LLP 

Attn: Mr. Thomas W. Dimond 

200 West Madison Street 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606-3417 

Phone: 

TDD: 

Email: 

DoUGLAS P. Scon, DIRECTOR 

(217) 78H289 

(217) 782-9143 

Michael.Dura@illinois.gov 

RE: ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

043467 AAA --DuPage 

Naperville--GreifBros Corp 

Compliance 

Dear Mr. Dimond, 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) has reviewed your Response to the 

Notice of Incompleteness of Claim to be Exempt from Public Disclosure, dated May 2, 2011, and 

received on May 4, 2011, for the QC Test Process Analysis, dated March 29, 2011. 

This letter will serve as notice pursuant to 2 Ill. Adm. Code Section 1828.404. The QC Test 

Process Analysis, dated March 29,2011, is exempt in-part pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.) 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has determined the QC Test Process Analysis, 

dated March 29,2011, is exempt in-part from public disclosure pursuant to 2 Ill Adm Sections 

1828.202.(a)(l)(H)/(l) and 5 ILCS 140/7(l)(i)/(k). 

If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact me at the above phone number 

or email address. 

Sincerely, , 

?l(td~f~ 

Michael E. Dura 

Legal Investigator 

Records Management Unit 

Planning and Reporting Section 

Bureau of Land · 

MD:med. 

cc: Bureau of Air File 

Charles Matoesian, DLC 

Rockford • 4302 N. Mail\ St~ Rockford, ll61103 •IBIS} 987·7760 

Elgir~ • 595 S. Sidle, Elgin, It 60123 • (647) 608-3131 

Bureau of land -Peoria • 7620 N. University Sl., Peoria, ll 61614 • (309) 693·5462 

Collir~svill~ • ·2009 Mall 5treel. Collir~sville,ll 62234 • (618).346-5120 · 

EXHIBIT3 

Des Plaines • 9511 W. Harrison St., Des Pl~ines,ll60016 • (847) 294-4000 

~ria • 5415 N. Univer~ty St., Peoria,ll 61614 • {309) 093-5463 

Champaign • 2125 S. First St .. Champaign, It 61B20 • (217) 278-5600 

Marion • 2309 W. Main SL, Suite 116, Marion,ll62959 • (618) 993-7200 
IN THE MA TIER OF : 

ll..LINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

January 10,2012 

) 

) 

) AS 11-1 

RSCEIVEDJ7 

ClllPAIUal\CJfflRitj;l:NO. _ 

JAN 10 2012 

STATE OF ~WNOIS 

Pollution Control Soard 

PETITION OF GREIF PACKAGING, LLC., 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 218 SUBPART IT 

) (Adjusted Standard - Air) 

~ 0 ~~~~r~~,~ fr~ ~,, 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER RHUR~~ sn 

On December 20, 2011, a hearing in this matter was held at the James R. Thompson 

Center, 100 West Randolph St., Chicago, ll... Room 11-512. Attorneys Thomas W. Dimond and 

Susan Charles appeared and participated on behalf of the petitioner. Attorney Charles E. 

Matoesian appeared and participated on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

(Agency). 

Preliminary Matters 

On November 8, 2011, a Hearing Officer Order was issued that directed the petitioner to 

address pre-hearing questions that were attached to the order. On December 8, 2011, the 

petitioner filed a Redacted Submission of Non-Disclosable Information and on December 20, 

2011, the petitioner filed an Application for Treatment as Non-Disclosable Information in 

accordance with the Il,linois Pollution Control Board's Procedural Rules, Section 130, Subpart D. 

Petitioner's aforementioned filings were taken with the case. 

During the hearing, the Agency was asked by the Board's Environmental Scientist Alisa 

Liu, to respond to questions directed to the Agency's witness, Yoginder Mahajan. The Agency 

elected to submit its answers in writing on or before January 13, 2012. 

Exhibits 

Petitioner offered three exhibits at the hearing. An exhibit list itemizing the offered 

exhibits and summarizing their status is attached to this order. 

Briefing Schedule 

At the hearing, a post hearing briefing schedule was discussed and agreed to. The 

petitioner's post-hearing brief is due to be filed on or before January 26, 2012. The Agency's 

post-hearing brief is due to be filed on or before February 9, 2012. Petitioner's reply, if any, is 

due to be filed on or before February 16, 2012. Public comment must be filed on or before 

January 17,2012. The Agency's written responses to the oral questions posed by Ms. Liu at 

hearing are due to be filed on or before January 13, 2012. 
2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Bradley P. Halloran 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 

100 West Randolph 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

312.814.8917 
3 

AS 11-1 

December 20, 2011 Hearing 

Exhibit List 

Exhibit Description Status 

Petitioner's Exhibit 1 Reasonably Available Control Technology Admitted 

Study, dated March 2011 

Petitioner's Exhibit 2 Final Air Quality Impact Analyses, dated Admitted 

August 11,2011 

Petitioner's Exhibit 3 Non-Disclosable Information (Redacted) - Admitted 

Response of petitioner to Hearing 

questions served on November 8, 2011 
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

It is hereby certified that true copies of the foregoing order were mailed, first class, on 

January 10, 2012, to each of the persons on the service list below. 

It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to the 

following on January 10, 2012: 

John Therriault 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

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

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

~ ~.\~~----

\ 

Bradley P. Halloran 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

312.814-8917 

SERVICE LIST 

AS 2011-001 

Division of Legal Counsel 

IEPA 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

AS 2011-001 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Ice Miller LLP 

200 W. Madison 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, IL 60606 

AS 2011-001 

Susan Charles 

Ice Miller LLP 

200 W. Madison 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, IL 60606 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012 

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO l4 

·-

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

PETITION OF GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL ADM. CODE PART 218 

SUBPARTTT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 11-01 

Air 

TO: John Therriault, Acting Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 

Susan Charles 

Tom Dimond 

lee Miller LLP 

200 W. Madison Street, Ste. 3500 

Chicago, IL 60606-3417 

NOTICE 

Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 1 1-500 

Chicago, IL 60601-3218 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board 

the ILLINOIS EPA ANSWERS TO ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

QUESTIONS AT HEARING of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy of which 

is herewith served upon you. 

DATED: January 12,2012 

I 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

217.782.5544 

217.782.9143 (TDD) 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

By: Is/ Charles E. Matoesian 

Charles E. Matoesian 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED 

ON RECYCLED PAPER 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

PETITION OF GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

351LL ADM. CODE PART 218 

SUBPARTTT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 11-01 

Air 

ILLINOIS EPA ANSWERS TO ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

QUESTIONS AT HEARING 

NOW COMES Respondent, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, Charles E. Matoesian, and files this response to the 

questions of the Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") at the December 20,2011, hearing. 

Question 1: Page 31 - 32 of the transcript: 

Previously in Adjusted standard AS 09-4 for a company called Royal Fiberglass, the 

agency stated that an increase of two parts per billion is quote, "potentially significant", end 

quote. 

In this case we are looking at 1.47 parts per billion. My first question is, does the Agency 

believe that an increment of I .47 parts per billion is potentially significant? 

Response: United States Environmental Protection Agency has not defined a level of 

significance for ozone. However, the Agency reviewed the impact of an increment of 1.47 parts 

per billion on the current air quality in the area. For 2007-2009, the one- hour design value at 

Lisle, the closest monitoring site to thefacility, is 70.7 parts per billion. The Agency believes 

that an increase of 1. 47 parts per billion to the design value will not cause the violation of 120 

parts per billion one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. Also, the Agency 

believes that adding 1.47 parts per billion to the design value of62. 7 parts per billion for 8-hour 

ozone standard (2007-2009) at Lisle monitoring site will not cause or contribute to a violation of 

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 75 parts per billion. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012 

Question 2: Page 32 of the transcript: 

And the second question is, does the Agency believe the granting of this proposed adjusted 

standard will cause or contribute to the violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for ozone or delay efforts to attain the NAAQS in a timely manner? 

Response: The Agency believes that granting of this proposed adjusted standard will not cause 

or contribute to violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone or delay the 

Agency's efforts to attain or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone in a 

timely manner. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF SAN GAM ON 

) 

) 

) 

ss 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached, ILLINOIS 

EPA ANSWERS TO ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD QUESTIONS AT 

HEARING upon the following persons: 

John Therriault, Acting Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

Susan Charles 

Tom Dimond 

Ice Miller LLP 

200 W. Madison Street, Ste. 3500 

Chicago, IL 60606-3417 

Dated: January 12,2012 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

217.782.5544 

217.782.9143 (TDD) 

Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 60601-3218 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Is/ Charles E. Matoesian 

Charles E. Matoesian 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 I~ 

/EPA ATTACHMENT NO 

·- BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MAHER OF: 

PETITION OF GREJF, JNC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

351LLADM. CODE PART 218 

SUBPARTTT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 2011-001 

(Adjusted Standard - Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

TO: 

John TheiTiault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Charles Matoesian 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

.PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the 

Illinois Pollution Control Board, NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING, PETITIONERS' 

POST-HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR 

ADJUSTED STANDARD and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, copies of which are attached 

herewith and served upon you. 

Date: January 26,2012 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Susan Charles 

ICE MILLER LLP 

200 West Madison Street 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Respectfully submitted, 

GREIF, INC. and GREIF PACKAGING, LLC 

By: Is/ Susan Charles 

One of its Attorneys 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, certify that on this 26th day of January, 2012, I have served 

electronically the attached NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING and PETITIONERS' POST1-IEAIUNG BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR AN 

ADJUSTED STANDARD upon the following person: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 6060 I 

and by electronic and U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to the following person: 

Charles Matoesian 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

Is/ Susan Charles 

Susan Charles 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER 0 F: 

PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING LLC 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 

35 ILL ADM. CODE PART 218 

SUBPARTTT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AS 2011-001 

(Adjusted Standard- Air) 

PETITIONERS' POST -HEARlNG BRlEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND AMENDED 

PETITION FOR AN AD.nJSTED STANDARD 

GREIF, INC. and GREIF PACKAGING LLC ("Greif'), through counsel, submit this 

post-hearing brief to the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") in support of their Second 

Amended Petition for an Adjusted Standard ("Petition"). Greif seeks an adjusted standard from 

35111. Adm. Code§ 218.986(a) as it applies to the emissions of volatile organic material 

("YOM") into the atmosphere from Greifs fiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 

Frontenac Road in Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Greif operates a fiber (paper) drum container manufacturing facility in Naperville, 

DuPage County, Illinois. The plant has been in operation since 1988 and employs about 90 

hourly and salaried personnel. Petition at 8 .. 

In general, fiber drums are produced by cutting fiber material to the appropriate length, 

forming the material into a cylinder and attaching a top and bottom to the cylinder. Some of the 

fiber drums require the addition of a polyethylene drum liner to meet customer specifications, 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

particularly for storage and transport of food-grade products. !d.; Exhibit I, Section 2.0. 1 Greif 

conducts quality control ("QC") testing of the liners of these drums by spraying a QC test fluid (a 

denatured alcohol product, which is a YOM) into the interior of the drums at the QC spray 

station. Exhibit I, Section 2.0. 

Greif uses an automated system to spray the interior of the drum liners with QC test fluid. 

A mechanical wand drops into the drum and sprays the QC test fluid. The wand is calibrated so 

each spray releases about the same amount of QC test fluid into each drum. The drums then 

travel approximately 45 feet to the QC inspection station where Greif visually inspects the 

interior for pinholes. Drums then arc conveyed another 120 feet to a drying oven. Any fluid 

remaining after drying is vacuumed out and the drum is wiped dry. YOM is emitted throughout 

the QC Test Process as well as in the paint drying oven. Petition at 9; Exhibit I, Section 1.0. 

Emissions of YOM from the QC Test Process are subject to Federally Enforceable State 

Operating Permit No. 9707044 ("FESOP"). Condition 3 of the FESOP limits YOM emissions 

from the QC Test Process to 22.8 tons per year ("tpy"). Exhibit I, Section 2.0. In 2006 and 

2007, the emissions from the QC Test Process exceeded that threshold, but in 2008-2010 

emissions from the QC Test Process were below that threshold due to the implementation of the 

actions proposed in the adjusted standard. See Petition at 3. The Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency ("Agency") issued Violation Notice A-2007-00132 to Greif. During 2006 

and 2007, the Agency alleges that Greirs YOM emissions became subject to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

Part 218, Subpart TT, Section 218.986(a) because Subpart TT is a "once in- always in" 

regulation. See Recommendation of II li no is Environmental Protection Agency at 4 (October II, 

20 II) ("Recommendation"). 

Exhibit I is the Reasonably Available Control Technology Study prepared by Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., P.E. 

for Greif and was admitted into evidence at the hearing. Transcript of December 20, 20 II Hearing at 18-21 

(hereafter "Hearing Transcript"). 

2 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

The Board promulgated 35 Ill. Adm. Code Pa1i 218 to implement reasonably available 

control technology ("RACT") for sources of YOM emissions within certain areas of Illinois. See 

In the Matter of Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Sources £milling Volatile 

Organic Materials in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area: 25 Tom, R93-14, Final Order 

(January 6, 1994). Section 218.986 provides, in relevant pa11: 

Every owner or operator of an emission unit subject to !Subpart TT) shall comply 

with the requirements of subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) below. 

a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieves an 

overall reduction in uncontrolled YOM emissions of at 

least 81 percent from each emission unit . 

Greif conducted a RACT Study to evaluate whether various emission control options for 

the QC Test Process satisfy RACT control requirements in Section 218.986(a). Greif submitted 

the RACT Study to the Agency on September 16, 2010 and subsequently submitted a revised 

RACT Study in March 2011 ("RACT Study"). Petition at 4; see Exhibit I. The RACT Study 

evaluated three capture and control systems: capture plus recuperative thermal oxidizers, capture 

plus carbon adsorbers and capture plus biofilters and material substitution. Exhibit I, Section 

1.0. The RACT Study concluded that each option could achieve at least 81 percent capture and 

control of YOM emissions as required under Section 218.986(a), but only at a cost per ton of 

YOM emissions controlled of between $1 1,667 - $17,672. !d. These costs exceed what the 

Board typically has considered reasonable in adopting RACT regulations. See infra at 9-13. 

Greif submitted its initial Petition in January 201 I. After discussions with the Agency, 

Greif filed an Amended Petition in May 2011 and a Second Amended Petition in August 2011. 

Changes included in the amended petitions reflected then-ongoing discussions among Greif and 

the Agency, as well as comments submitted by U.S. EPA to the Agency. After the filing of the 

Second Amended Petition in August, Greif continued to work with the Agency to address 

3 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

concerns that either they or U.S. EPA had with the precise wording of the adjusted standard 

included in the Second Amended Petition. The Agency filed its Recommendation on Greifs 

Petition on October 1 I, 2011. The Recommendation supports granting Greifs Petition but with 

slightly different language than what was included in the Second Amended Petition. Greif 

reviewed the adjusted standard language included in the Agency's Recommendation and would 

accept that language as an adjusted standard. Accordingly, Greif supports the following adjusted 

standard language, which is included in the Agency's Recommendation at pages 9-11, for 

adoption by the Board: 

I. The proposed adjusted standard applies to the emission of YOM into the atmosphere 

from the automated QC Test Process line at Greifs fiber drum manufacturing facility 

located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois (the Facility). 

The Facility manufactures fiber drums. Some of the fiber drums arc lined with 

polyethylene to meet customer specifications, particularly for storage and transport of 

food-grade products. Lined drums must be tested to ensure the integrity of the 

polyethylene lining. That testing is performed at the QC Test Process, which consists of 

the following equipment and steps: 

a. An automated, mechanical wand is lowered into each lined drum on a 

conveyor system. The wand is calibrated so that each spray releases about 

the same amount of QC test fluid into each drum. 

b. The drums then are conveyed to the QC inspection station where the 

interior of the drum is visually inspected for pinholes. 

c. The drum next is conveyed to a drying oven where most of the remaining 

QC test fluid is evaporated. After leaving the drying oven any remaining 

QC test fluid is vacuumed from the drum and then the drum is wiped dry. 

YOM in the QC test fluid is emitted throughout the QC Test Process as 

well as in the drying oven. 

2. The Facility will reduce YOM emissions from its automated QC Test Process by using a 

test fluid composed of no more than 45 percent denatured alcohol by weight and no less 

than 55 percent water by weight. 

3. The Facility will calibrate the automated QC Test Process equipment to spray an average 

of no more than 48 grams of QC test fluid per drum with compliance to be measured at 

least once per calendar quarter by the following procedure. 

4 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

a. Weigh a plastic bag on a gram scale to detennine the weight of the bag. 

b. Place the plastic bag over the spray head of the wand of the QC Test 

Process and secure it in place with a rubber band or binder clip. 

c. Cycle the QC Test Process by passing a drum through the process in the 

normal manner of operation with the plastic bag capturing the QC test 

fluid. Remove the plastic bag from the spray head of the wand of the QC 

Test Process and weigh it on the same gram scale used in step a. 

d. Calculate the weight ofQC test fluid sprayed as the difference between the 

weight determined in step c and the weight determined in step a. 

e. Repeat steps a. through d. for five cycles of the QC Test Process. 

Calculate the average weight of QC test fluid sprayed per cycle and 

compare that average to the standard of an average of no more than 48 

grams of QC test fluid per drum. 

4. All records and logs required by this adjusted standard shall be retained at a readily 

accessible location at the source for at least five years from the date of entry and shall be 

made available for inspection and copying by the Illinois EPA or USEPA upon request. 

Any records retained in an electronic format (e.g., computer) shall be capable of being 

retrieved and printed on paper during normal source office hours so as to be able to 

respond to an Illinois EPA or USEPA request for records during the course of a source 

inspection. 

5. The Facility will maintain records of its QC test fluid usage that will allow the monthly 

calculation of the amount of QC test fluid used during the month and the calculation of 

YOM emissions on a 12-month rolling total basis for comparison to annual YOM limits 

in the FESOP. To allow these calculations, the Facility will: 

a. Record the volume ofQC test fluid held as inventory on the first and last 

day of each month. 

b. Maintain records of the volume ofQC test fluid received at the Facility 

during each month. 

c. The volume ofQC test fluid used for a month shal.l equal the inventory 

volume on the first day of the month plus the volume received at the 

Facility during the month, less the volume in inventory on the last day of 

the month. 

d. The volume used during a month calculated in step c shall be multiplied 

by the YOM content of the QC test fluid (in pounds per unit of volume) to 

compute the weight (in pounds) of YOM emitted during the month. 

5 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

e. Using the emissions of YOM in pounds calculated for each month in step 

d, the Facility will compute the 12-month rolling YOM emissions for the 

QC Test Process and report those results to Facility management. 

6. Greif will continue to investigate the availability of alternative QC test fluids with lower 

YOM content. Greif will incorporate such lower YOM QC test fluids into its automated 

QC Test Process provided that the lower YOM QC test fluids allow visual detection of 

pinholes or other tears or imperfections in the drum linings within an acceptable period of 

time and does not result in any negative product quality impacts. 

7. The proposed adjusted standard will not affect the calculation of Greif's potential 

Emissions Reduction Market System ("ERMS") baseline or its ERMS allotment if Greif's 

Naperville plant should participate in the ERMS program. 

8. Environmental staff of Greif's parent company will conduct a formal training session for 

Naperville facility personnel on the requirements of the FESOP and the internal 

procedures for tracking compliance with FESOP conditions. 

9. Emissions and operation of the QC Test Process shall not exceed the following limits: 

YOM Usage 

YOM Emissions 

(Tons/Mo) 

2.3 

2.3 

(Tons/Yr) 

22.8 

22.8 

These limits are based on the maximum material usage and the maximum YOM content. 

Compliance with the annual limit for the QC Test Process shall be determined from a 

running total of 12 months of data. 

II. GREIF'S PETITION SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE BURDEN OF PROOF TO 

OBTAIN AN ADJUSTED STANDARD. 

Where, as here, the regulation of general applicability does not specify a level of 

justification required for a petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, Section 28.1 (c) of the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 4151LCS 5/28.l(c), authorizes the Board to grant an 

adjusted standard upon adequate proof of the following: (I) the factors relating to the petitioner 

are substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting 

the general regulation applicable to the petitioner; (2) the existence of those factors justifies an 

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

6 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

substantially and signif1cantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting 

the rule of general applicability; and (4) the adjusted standard is consistent with applicable 

federal law. The Agency also cited Section 28.1 (c) as establishing the applicable standards for 

this proceeding. See Recommendation at 5. 

A. Factors Relating to Greif are Substantially and Significantly Different. 

As demonstrated by well-established Board precedent the factors relating to Greif's 

ability to reduce YOM emissions are substantially and significantly different from any the Board 

may have relied on in adopting Subpart TT. 

I. The Board Did Not Consider Factors Involving lhe Drum Manl!facturing 

Business in Adopting Subpar/ TT. 

Subpart TT of Part 218 is essentially a "catch-all" RACT regulation applicable to YOM 

sources that are not governed by other subparts of Part 218. In adopting Subpart TT, the Board 

did not consider factors relating to any specific industry or practice- including the fiber drum 

manufacturing business. Rather, the purpose of Subpart TT was to cover sources that had not 

otherwise been specifically considered. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code§ 218.980(a) and (b). The Board 

previously has reasoned that, because it did not consider any specific factors in adopting Subpart 

TT, virtually any factors specific to an industry or specific source not covered by another subpart 

of Part 218 would be "substantially and significantly different." See Ford Motor Company 

(2000), AS 00-6, Slip. Op. at 5 (granting adjusted standard from Subpart TT). 

In Ford Mo10r Company, the Board considered an adjusted standard petition in which 

Ford sought an alternative emissions control plan to address solvent cleanup operations at its 

Chicago assembly plant. Id. Slip Op. at I. The Board stated that Subpa1t TT applies to YOM 

sources with certain characteristics that are not governed by other subpa1ts of Part 218 and, in 

adopting Subpart TT, the Board did not consider factors relating to any specific industry or 

7 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

practice. !d. Slip. Op. at 5. The Board then ruled that, because factors relating to Ford's cleaning 

operations were not considered in adopting Section 218.986(a), the requirement to demonstrate 

significantly different factors "is therefore met." !d. Likewise, the Board did not consider the 

unique factors applicable to fiber drum manufacturers or to Greifs Naperville facility in adopting 

Section 218.986(a). Accordingly, Section 28.l(c)(J) should be deemed satisfted. 

2. Greifs Ability to Manage VOM Emissions Through Dilurion of its QC Test 

Fluid and Limitations on the Amount ofQC Tesl Fluid Used Constitute 

Substantially and Significantly Different Factors. 

Even if the Board had considered factors impacting the capture and control of YOM 

emissions at fiber drum manufacturers when it promulgated Section 218.986(a), it did not 

consider Greifs unique QC Test Process. Capturing emissions from the QC Test Process would 

involve pat1icular complexity because of the need to construct capture equipment over an 

extended conveyor line, which also requires larger control equipment to handle the volume of 

captured air. Exhibit I, Section 1.0; Hearing Transcript, 12. Construction of effective capture 

equipment is further complicated by the need to maintain physical access to the drums for visual 

inspection. This means the conveyor line cannot be totally enclosed to maximize capture. In 

addition, the Board did not consider the ability to manage YOM emissions by diluting the QC 

test fluid with water and limiting the amount of QC test fluid applied to each drum. Exhibit I, 

Section 1.0. These factors are substantially and significantly different from emission units where 

material substitution is not possible and the construction and operation of emission capture 

equipment is less extensive, and Section 28.1 ( c )(I) should be considered satisfied for this reason, 

too. 

8 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

3. Greifs QC Test Process is Substantially and Significantly Different.from 

Other Manufacturing Activities Considered by the Board 

In addition, even assuming, arguendo, that capture and control could be an economically 

reasonable option, Greifs specific system would be complicated by the physical location of 

different production activities within the Naperville plant, the slow evaporation of the testing 

fluid and the need for Greif to inspect drums visually after the QC test fluid has been sprayed 

into the drum. The testing fluid begins to evaporate while being sprayed in the QC spray station. 

Evaporation continues while the drum is being conveyed to and awaiting QC inspection and also 

as the drums are conveyed from the inspection area to the drum paint oven and, possibly, 

afterward. Because the lined drums must be accessible for visual inspection, complete enclosure 

of the drum conveyor line is not possible. These factors would require large capture systems, 

including a hood at each QC station and along the conveyor line transporting the drums. See 

Exhibit I at Section 1.0. The need to construct and operate a capture system this complex and 

this large was not considered by the Board in adopting Subpart TT, and Section 28.l(c)(l) 

should be considered satisfied for this reason, as well. 

4. Costs of Achieving RACT Control Standard Exceed those Considered by 

Board in Selling RACT Standard. 

As shown in Greifs RACT Study, feasible technologies to achieve the 81 percent 

combined capture and control objective of Section 218.986(a) would require costs per ton of 

annual YOM removed ranging from $11,667 to $17,672. Exhibit 1 at Section 1.0. These costs 

exceed the threshold cost level the Board previously has found to be economically unreasonable. 

See In the Maller of Petition of Forme/ Industries, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard from 35 !II. 

Adm. Code. 218.401 (a), (b) and (c), AS 00-13, Slip. Op. at 9 (January 18, 2001) (Board granted 

adjusted standard and .the Agency agreed that costs of $10,911 - $18,041 per ton of YOM 

9 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

reduced were economically unreasonable); Ford Motor Company (2000}, Slip. Op. at 5 (citing In 

re.· Petition of Louis Berkman, AS 97-5 (Dec. 4, 1997) a!]'d sub nom EPA v. PCB, 308 Ill. App. 

3d 741, 746 & 752-53, 721 N.E.2d 723, 726-27 & 731 (2d Dist. 1999); In the Matter of Joint 

Petition of Reynolds Metals Company and !he !1/inois Environmenlal ProJection Agency for an 

Adjusted Srandard from 3 5 lAC 218.980, AS 91-8 (Sept. 21, 1995) (Board found $40,000 per ton 

of YOM reduced to be economicaliy unreasonable). In addition, while the Agency has stated 

that costs in excess of any particular dollar amount are not per se economically unreasonable, the 

Agency does agree that the "alternative compliance methods and add-on options investigated by 

Greif have costs which are not RACT." See Recommendation at 11-12. 

Greif investigated multiple compliance alternatives capable of achieving an 81 percent 

capture and control of YOM emissions from its QC Test Process and their associated costs. See 

Exhibit I at Section 3. As shown below, the RACT study demonstrates that dilution of the QC 

test fluid with water is the only technically feasible and economically reasonable alternative. 

a. Capture Systems 

Due to the physical set-up of Greifs QC test process, an effective capture system would 

require a tunnel enclosure covering the 165 foot conveyer system from the QC spray station to 

the inspection station and, later, to the drum paint oven. See Exhibit 1 at Section 3 .1. Enclosures 

also would be needed for the hood at the QC spray station and the opening of the drum paint 

oven to ensure adequate capture of emissions. !d. Ducting to the associated control device(s) 

also would be required from the QC Test Process hood, the conveyor tunnel enclosure and the 

drum paint oven. ld. This type of capture system is assumed for each control method discussed 

below. The capital and annual operating costs for the capture system are included within the cost 

summary for each control system. 

10 
Electronic Piling- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

b. Control Technologies. 

Greif's RACT Study includes a thorough evaluation of the following add-on control 

technologies: (a) recuperative thermal incinerator; (b) carbon adsorption; and (c) biofilter and 

material substitution. Jd. at Section 3.2. As detailed below, each of these potential control 

systems are economically umcasonable. 

l. Recuperative Thermal Incinerators 

A recuperative thermal incinerator requires a large amount of natural gas as compared to 

other control options. Jd.at Section 3.2. I. In addition, frequent operation cycles in thermal 

.oxidizers cause condensation corrosion and thermal deterioration of the insulation which requires 

ongoing maintenance costs. I d. at Section I .0. The RAC'T' Study concluded that total capital 

costs of the capture system and the recuperative thermal incinerator control technology at Greif's 

Naperville facility would be $1,752,000 with annualized capital and operating costs of $17,672 

per ton ofVOM controlled. See id. at Table 4-1. 

11 Carbon Adsorbers 

A carbon adsorber typically consists of two or more beds of activated carbon- one treats 

the exhaust emissions while the other is being regenerated. /d. at Section 3.2.2. Carbon 

adsorbers work best with insoluble VOM, which simplifies the recovery of the YOM from the 

saturated beds. Jd. The QC test fluid is water soluble and would be expensive to recover. !d. 

The RACT Study concluded that capital costs of the capture system and the carbon adsorbers 

control technology would be$], 170,000. This control option would result in total annualized 

capital and operating costs of $12,594 per ton of YOM controlled. See id at Table 4-1. 

I I 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

111. Hiofilter and Material Substitution 

A biofiltcr would only meet the 81 percent capture and control objective by combining 

the biofiltcr with another control technology or by considering the reductions in YOM emissions 

from the usc of the water diluted test fluid as a control technology reduction. /d. Based on the 

RACT Study, total capital costs to install the capture system and the biofilter control technology 

(which includes use of the water diluted test fluid) is $1,800,000 and annualized capital and 

operating costs arc $11,667 per ton ofYOM controlled. See idat Table 4-1. 

c. Material Substitution Options 

1. QC Test Fluid- Dilution with Acetone 

Greif considered dilution of the QC test fluid with acetone (a non-YOM material) as a 

possible alternative. However, dilution of the testing fluid with acetone can cause the gasket 

material sealing the bottom of the drum to the drum walls to dissolve. See Exhibit I at Section 

3.3.2. Due to the potential for product damage, diluting the QC testing fluid with acetone is 

considered technically infeasible and specific costs were not calculated. !d. 

11. QC Test Fluid- Dilution with Water 

Greif evaluated the operational impact of diluting the QC test fluid with varying amounts 

of water to reduce YOM emissions. Exhibit I, Section 3.3.1. Greif experimented with five 

different ratios of water to denatured alcohol to identify the composition able to reduce YOM 

emissions to the greatest extent possible while maintaining the ability to visually detect pinholes 

or other tears or imperfections in the drum linings. Based on these test runs, Greif determined 

that 55 percent dilution with water was the highest dilution percentage that would allow the plant 

to meet its customer's quality assurance requirements. !d. Greif then conducted additional 

testing to determine whether the amount ofQC test fluid applied to each drum could be reduced. 

12 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

Based on this testing, Greif determined that it could reduce the QC test fluid sprayed into each 

drum to an amount not to exceed 48 grams. ld Total capital costs to dilute the QC test fluid 

with water would be $0 and annualized capital and operating costs a.re reduced by $541 per ton 

ofVOC controlled. See id.at Table 4-l. 

d. Conclusions ofRACT Sludy 

Three capture and control systems would be technically feasible: capture plus 

recuperative thermal oxiders, capture plus carbon adsorbers and capture plus biofilters and 

material substitution. While each of these options could achieve the 81 percent capture and 

control objectives of Subpart IT, the cost/ton ofVOM controlled range from $11,667 to 

$17,672. Greif and the Agency agree that these costs exceed what the Board has considered 

reasonable in adopting RACT regulations. See Exhibit I, Section 1.0; Recommendation at II. 

The alternative included in the proposed adjusted standard, material substitution using 55 percent 

water and 45 percent denatured alcohol combined with reducing the amount of QC test fluid 

applied to each lined drum that is tested, results in an overall reduction in costs while achieving 

an over 70% reduction in VOM emissions compared to pre-substitution levels. Thus, for the 

Naperville plant, this material-substitution alternative constitutes RACT. 

B. The Existence of These Factors Justifies ~.!L~djusted Standard. 

The intent of the regulations promulgated under 35lll. Adm. Code Part 218 is to 

implement RACT for YOM emission sources in the Chicago ozone non-attainment area. See In 

the Maller of Petition of Ford Molor Company (Chicago Assembly Plant) for an Acljusted 

Slandardfrom 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986, AS 02-3, Slip. Op. at 4 (November 21, 2002). Greif 

has demonstrated that, due to manufacturing limitations that are unique to Greifs operations and 

substantially and significantly different from those considered by the Board in developing 

13 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

Subpart TT, costs to comply with an 81 percent capture and control requirement exceed RACT. 

In addition, the use of the water-diluted test fluid as an adjusted standard reduces emissions from 

the QC Test Process below the applicability threshold for Subpart TT2 and below applicable 

FESOP limits while reducing costs. Petition at 3 (reporting QC Test Process emissions for 2008-

201 0). 

In addition, construction and operation of control equipment capable of achieving 81 

percent capture and control (as opposed to the over 70 percent capture and control associated 

with the QC test fluid) could result in marginally better emissions reductions but would yield 

negative environmental, health and safety impacts not associated with use of the QC Test fluid. 

See Exhibit I at Section 3.2.1. For example, use of recuperative thermal incinerators requires 

large amounts of natural gas and generates NOx and CO emissions and small quantities of VOM 

and HAPs. !d. at Section 4.4. These emissions would partially offset any benefits obtained from 

Greifs associated VOM reduction. The Board previously has demonstrated a concern for 

capture and control technologies, such as incinerators, that create alternate emissions, e.g .. NOx, 

which also contribute to ozone formation or hazardous waste generation that offset any 

environmental gains from reducing VOM emissions. See, e.g., Alumax, AS 92-13, Slip. Op. at 7 

(Board granted adjusted standard from Subpart TT where use of control technologies created 

offsetting emissions ofNOx and VOM); In the Matter of Joint Petition of Quantum Chemical 

Corporation, US! Division (and the 11/inois Environmental Protection Agency)for an Adjusted 

Standard from Parts of35 1/1. Adm. Code 218.966 and 2/8.986. AS 92-14, Slip. Op. at 9 (Board 

2 Greif understands that Subpart TT is a "once in-always in" rule. 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 218.980(c). 

However, the fact that the diluted QC test fluid will bring emissions below the applicability threshold is of some 

significance because the Board certainly did not consider sources with uncontrolled emissions less than the threshold 

being subject to Subpart 1T. 

14 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

granted adjusted standard from Subpart TT where use of control technology would emit NOx 

which would partially offset the benefits of YOM reduction). 

In addition, the regeneration fluid associated with carbon adsorbers likely could be sent to 

a local sewage district along with Greif's other process wastewaters. See Exhibit I at Section 

3.2.2. Most sewer districts use equalization basins to reduce biological oxygen demand loading, 

which in this context includes YOM, by blowing solvents into the atmosphere; meaning that 

YOM emissions may not truly be reduced by the use of carbon beds. Further, ketones found in 

the denatured alcohol present an inherent safety risk of fires from reactions between the ketones 

and the carbon in the beds. Jd Although carbon beds that handle ketones utilize water deluge 

systems to control bed fires, the increased health and safety risks remain. !d . . 

Finally, a biofilter system must be heated to maintain destruction activity during winter 

months and heat for the filter can be supplied by the direct combustion of natural gas, steam or 

electricity. See Exhibit I at Section 3.2.3. Natural gas used for combustion would increase NOx 

emissions from the facility, partially offsetting the benefit from reductions in YOM emissions. 

ld 

An analysis of the costs of the various control technologies that are available to address 

YOM emissions from Greif's Naperville facility demonstrate that dilution of the QC test fluid 

with water constitutes RACT. In addition, dilution of the QC test fluid with water provides 

meaningful reductions in YOM emissions without the negative environmental, health and safety 

impacts associated with operation of capture and control systems. The existence of these factors 

justify the proposed adjusted standard. 

15 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

C. The Requested Standard Will Not Result in Adverse Health Effects. 

The requested adjusted standard will have little, if any, adverse impact on human health 

or the environment. In 2009, state-wide YOM point source emissions were 54,668 tons. See 

Illinois Annual Air Quality Report, Table C-5 (!EPA November 2009) (available at 

www.epa.state. il.us/ai r/air-gual i ty-report/2009/ai r-gual it y-report -2009. pdf). And, 2009 YOM 

point source emissions for the Metropolitan Chicago area, which includes Naperville, were 

II ,884 tons. See Amended Petition for an Adjusted Standard, Exhibit B (May 31, 2011 ). Thus, 

even at the maximum emission differential between the proposed adjusted standard and 

compliance with Subpart TT for the Naperville plant (6.7 tpy, see Exhibit 3 at 2, admitted into 

evidence, Hearing Transcript at 20-21), maximum incremental YOM emissions from the QC 

Test Process would amount to about 0.012% of state-wide point source emissions and only about 

0.056% of Metropolitan Chicago emissions. The Board has previously found that adjusted 

standards from Subpart TT from sources with much higher YOM emission levels would have no 

significant impact on air quality. See, e.g., Alumax, AS 92-13, Slip. Op. at 9 (board found 

foregone emission reductions of76 tpy from not achieving 81 percent control would not 

significantly impact human health.). In this case, the maximum incremental emissions from not 

complying with Subpart TT are far less than those the Board found to have no significant impact 

in A/umax. Further, the Board previously has found that a control plan resulting in an overall 

emissions reduction constitutes a positive environmental impact. See Ford Mo10r Company 

(2002), AS 02-3, Slip. Op. at 4 (50 tpy reduction of YOM emissions (from 390 tpy to 340 tpyor 13%) was "significant" and would have a "positive impact on air quality."). Here, dilution of 

the QC test fluid and limitation on the amount of QC test fluid used per drum is producing just 

16 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

over a 70% reduction ofVOM emissions an even greater reduction on a percentage basis than 

what was at issue in the Ford petition. 

To further address the issue of potential environmental impact, at the request of the 

Board, Greifs consultant, Tom Ponder, prepared an Air Quality Impact Analysis using the 

Scheffe method. See Exhibit 2 (admitted at Hearing Transcript at 19-21 ). As detailed in that 

analysis, assuming the maximum emission differential between complying with the adjusted 

standard and complying with Subpart TT, the Scheffe method predicted a conservative ozone 

increment estimate of 1.4 7 ppb of ozone. !d. at 2. That increment when added to the monitored 

ozone levels at the nearest Illinois monitoring station in Lisle would not predict exceedances of 

either of the national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for ozone. !d. at 2-3 (addressing 

the !-hour ozone NAAQS and the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS). 

Further, the Agency has not identified any material concerns for air quality or health 

effects resulting from a grant of the proposed adjusted standard. The Agency's Recommendation 

acknowledges that the "technical factors (associated with operation ofGreir QC test process] 

and the emission reductions Greif has already made offset the Agency's concern" with regard to 

any negative impacts to air quality. See Recommendation at 7-8. The Agency supported this 

position in response to questions raised during the hearing. The Board's technical adviser asked 

for the Agency's views as to whether a 1.47 ppb estimated ozone increment was "potentially 

significant" and as to whether granting of this proposed adjusted standard will cause or 

contribute to the violations of the NAAQS for ozone or delay efforts to attain the ozone NAAQS 

in a timely manner. See Hearing Transcript at 31-32. 

In response to those questions, the Agency stated: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency has not defined a 

level of significance for ozone. However, the Agency reviewed 

17 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

the impact of an increment of 1.47 parts per billion on the cunent 

air quality in the area. For 2007- 2009, the one- hour design value 

at Lisle, the closest monitoring site to the facility, is 70.7 parts per 

billion. The Agency believes that an increase of 1.47 parts per 

billion to the design value will not cause the violation of 120 pm1s 

per billion one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

ozone. Also, the Agency believes that adding 1.47 parts per billion 

to the design value of 62.7 pat1s per billion for 8-hour ozone 

standard (2007-2009) at Lisle monitoring site will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards of75 pa11s per billion. 

See Illinois EPA Answers to Illinois Pollution Control Board Questions at Hearing at I (January 

12, 20 12). The Agency also stated its view that granting of this proposed adjusted standard will 

not cause or contribute to violations of the ozone NAAQS or delay the Agency's efforts to attain 

or maintain the NAAQS for ozone in a timely manner. !d. at 2. Thus, there is no evidence 

suggesting that granting the requested adjusted standard will result in any adverse health effects. 

D. The Requested Standard is Consistent with Federal Law. 

Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, grants individual states the 

authority to promulgate a plan for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of air quality 

standards, subject to approval by U.S. EPA. Based on the RACT Study, the proposed adjusted 

standard constitutes RACT for the Greif facility, and is therefore consistent with the federal 

Clean Air Act. A state may revise its SIP, again subject to U.S. EPA approval. 42 U.S.C. § 

7410. Greif will work with the Agency to submit a SIP revision to U.S. EPA that is consistent 

with any adjusted standard granted by the Board, and the Agency has indicated it will submit the 

adjusted standard as a SIP revision to U.S. EPA if the adjusted standard is adopted by the Board. 

Recommendation at 8. Further, the Agency has represented to Greif that it has discussed Greifs 

Petition and the associated SIP revision with U.S. EPA and any concerns raised by U.S. EPA 

have been addressed. See id. 

18 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, Greif has demonstrated that the proposed adjusted standard 

satisfies the requirements of Section 28.1 (c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, that 

granting of the proposed adjusted standard is recommended by the Agency and that the adjusted 

standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 218.986(a) for Greif's automated QC Test Process should be 

granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GREIF, INC. AND 

GREIF PACKAGING LLC 

By: /s/ Susan Charles 

Thomas W. Dimond 

Susan Charles 

ICE MILLER LLP 

200 West Madison Street 

Chicago, lllinois 60606 

3I2-726-1567 

January 26, 2012 

19 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

April 5, 2012 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

PETITION OF GREIF PACKAGING, LLC, ) 

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM ) 

35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 218 ) 

SUBPARTTT ) 

AS 2011-01 

(Adjusted Standard- Air) 

IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.-

THOMAS W. DIMOND AND SUSAN CHARLES OF ICE MILLER LLP APPEARED ON 

BEHALF OF GREIF PACKAGING, LLC, and 

CHARLES E. MATOESIAN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.A. Burke): 

On January 24,2011, Greif Packaging, LLC (Greif) filed a petition for an adjusted 

standard (Petition) from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) as it app.lies to emissions of volatile 

organic material (VOM) at Greifs fiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 

Frontenac Road in Naperville, Du Page County. VOM in excess of Board standards is emitted 

by a denatured alcohol product Greif uses as a test fluid in its quality control (QC) process to 

detect the existence of pinhole leaks in polyethylene liners for certain drums. Such drum liners 

are used to meet customers' drum specifications, particularly for drums used for storage and 

transport of food-grade products. 

On October 11,2011, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a 

recommendation that the Board grant Greifs petition. The Board held a public hearing in 

Naperville on December 20,2011, following which the parties briefed the issues raised. 

Based on the record before it, the Board finds that Greif has provided sufficient 

justification for an adjusted standard under Section 28.1 of the Env.ironmental Protection Act 

(Act), 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (20 10), and the Board grants Greif an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.986(a) subject to conditions outlined in this order. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On January 24,2011, Greif filed a petition with the Board for an adjusted standard from 

35 Ill. Adm. Code 21 8.986(a), accompanied by a Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) Study. On February 10,201 I, Greif filed a "ProofofPetition Notice Requirements" 

indicating that notice of the petition was published in the Naperville Sun on January 27,2011. 

See 415ILCS 5/28.l(d)(1) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(a) and 104.410. 
2 

On March 17, 2011, the Board issued an order accepting the petition for hearing. On 

March 21, 2011, the Board's hearing officer issued an order directing Greif to address prehearing 

questions. 

On May 31, 2011, Greif filed a First Amended Petition followed by a "Proof of Petition 

Notice Requirements" on June 17,2011, indicating that notice of the first amended petition was 

published in the Naperville Sun on June I 0, 2011. On August I 0, 2011, Greif filed a Second 

Amended Petition (2nd Am. Pet.) followed by a "Proof of Petition Notice Requirements" on 

August 30, 2011, indicating that notice of the petition was published in the Naperville Sun on 

August 12, 20 II. 

The Agency filed motions for extensions of time in which to file the Agency's 

recommendation on March 9, 2011, April7, 2011, May 9, 2011, July 12,2011, and September 

22, 2011. The Hearing Officer granted each of the Agency's motions on March I 0, 2011, April 

7, 2011, May 10,2011,July 13,2011, and September26, 2011,respectively. On October 11, 

2011, the Agency filed its recommendation (Rec.) that the Board grant Greifs requested relief, 

subject to certain terms and conditions contained in the recommendation. 

On November 1, 2011, Greif submitted its "Air Quality Impact Analysis of the [Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC)) Emissions from the Greif Packaging Facility in Naperville, Illinois 

Using the Scheffe Tables." On November 8, 20 I I, the hearing officer directed Greif to address 

additional prehearing questions based on the second amended petition, the air quality impact 

analysis, the Agency's recommendation, and responses to the earlier prehearing questions. 

On December 8, 2011, Greif filed a "Redacted Submission ofNon-Disclosable 

Information" for the "Response of Greif Packaging LLC to Hearing Questions for Petitioner and 

(Agency) Served on November 8, 201 I" (Response to Hearing Questions) followed by an 

"Application for Treatment as Non-Disclosable Information" (Application) on December 20, 

2011. 

On December 20, 2011, the hearing officer conducted a hearing in this matter at the 

James R. Thompson Center located at I 00 West Randolph Street in Chicago, Cook County. The 

Transcript of the hearing will be cited as "Tr. at_." Two witnesses testified at hearing on 

behalf of Greif: (I) Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE, consulting engineer, and (2) Khaalis Rahman, 

plant manager at Greifs facility in Naperville. At the hearing, Greif also presented testimony to 

support its "Application for Treatment as Non-Disclosable Information". See Tr. at 22-25. 

On January 12, 2012, the Agency filed comments in response to questions from the 

Board's staff at hearing, clarifying the Agency's recommendation (Agency Answers). On 

January 26,2012, Greif filed a post-hearing brief(Pet. Br.). 
3 

PRELIMINARY MATTER REGARDING NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION 

Greif's Application for Treatment as Non-Disclosable Information 

On December 20, 20 II, Greif filed an application for treatment as non-disclosable 

information with the Board. Specifically, Greif requested that the Board grant, pursuant to 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 130.406, certain information identified in Exhibit I of the application to protection 

from public disclosure. 

In support of its position, Greif states that a thorough response to pre-hearing questions 

submitted by the Board hearing officer required information that Greif believes constitutes 

"confidential data" as described in 415ILCS 5/7(a) and 35111. Adm. Code 101.202. Application 

at 2. This information relates to the average weight of VOC sprayed into each lined drum as part 

of Greif's QC test process over different time periods and calculations of the maximum 

production capacity of Greif's facility based on those averages. Jd. Greif states that this 

information as well as subsequent actual production data is confidential business information. 

!d. Greif notes that it has always maintained its annual production data as confidential business 

information and that the averages referred to above were protected by the Agency from 

disclosure under its regulations implementing the lllinois Freedom oflnformation Act. Jd. Greif 

attached the Agency determination of same as an exhibit to its application. 

Board Discussion on Application 

The Illinois General Assembly has made provisions in Sections 7 and 7.1 of the Act to 

protect from public disclosure trade secrets and other non-disc losable information submitted to 

the State agencies. The Act also provides that certain submissions are not to be kept 

confidential, balancing the public's right to know with other policy interests, such as protecting 

secret processes that have competitive business value. 415 JLCS 5/7, 7.1 (2010). The Board's 

procedural rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 130) implement these statutory provisions, and allow a 

petitioner to claim that all or part of a filing constitutes non-disc losable information. 

The Board has reviewed the claimed information in issuing today's order. The Board has 

received no formal requests for public disclosure of the claimed confidential business 

information. Therefore, Greif's claimed information will continue to remain protected from 

public disclosure in accordance with 35lll. Adm. Code 130.Subpart D. In rePetition of Peoria 

Disposal Company, AS 8-10, slip op. at 88 (Jan. 8, 2009). 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The Facility 

Greif operates a fiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in 

Naperville, DuPage County. 2nd Am. Pet. at 8. DuPage County is part of the Metropolitan 

Chicago Interstate Air Quality Control Region. !d., citing 40 CFR 81.14. This area is designated 

as a non-attainment area for ozone for both the !-hour and 8-hour standards under 40 CFR 

81.314. !d. at 8,16. 
4 

Manufacturing of fiber drums at the Naperville facility began in 1988, and Greif currently 

employs approximately 90 people there. 2nd Am. Pet. at 8, Exh. A at 2-1, Tr. at 8. The fiber 

drums are manufactured in sizes ranging from 6 to 75 gallons. I d. The drum manufacturing 

process involves cutting the fiber material, forming it into a cylinder, and attaching a top and 

bottom to the cylinder. I d. Greif adds a polyethylene drum liner to some drums to meet 

customer specifications, particularly for storage and transport of food-grade products. I d. 

For drums manufactured with drum liners, Greif tests the liners for QC purposes to 

identify if pinholes are present. 2nd Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. A at 2-1, Tr. at 8-9. Greif described the 

QC test process: a drum moves along a conveyor belt toward the QC spray station, the conveyor 

belt stops, and a mechanical wand drops into the drum and releases a QC test fluid. !d. The QC 

test fluid is a denatured alcohol product, which is a YOM by definition. The wand is calibrated 

to spray the same amount of the QC test fluid into each drum. ld. When the wand is retracted, 

the conveyor belt moves the drum 45 feet to the QC inspection station. Id. Here the interior is 

visually inspected for pinholes, which if present, appear as a brown spot. ld. Next the drum is 

conveyed 120 feet to a drying oven where most of the remaining test fluid evaporates. !d. Any 

additional test fluid is vacuumed and wiped dry. !d. 

YOM Emissions 

Greif pointed out that, because QC test fluid evaporates slowly, YOM emissions occur 

throughout the QC test process as well as in the paint drying oven. 2nd Am. Pet. at 1-2, 9, Exh. 

A at 1 -I, Tr. at II. 

Greif stated that it "tracks its YOM emissions on a monthly basis by calculating the mass 

ofYOMs used and assuming that all usage is emitted to the atmosphere." 2nd Am. Pet. at 2. 

Greif records the volume of denatured alcohol held in inventory on the first day of the month 

plus the volume purchased within the month. !d. Greif then subtracts the inventory remaining 

on the last day ofthe month to calculate the volume used. Jd. The volume is then multiplied by 

the YOM content (in pounds per gallon) to determine the pounds of YOM emitted during the 

month. !d. 

Other YOM emission sources at Greif's Naperville facility include a caulk applicator, 

paint spray booth, and ink printing. Greif explained that these other emission sources are 

permitted, with source-specific annual YOM limits in the facility's Federal Enforceable State 

Operating Permit (FESOP), totaling 1.4 tons per year (tpy). 2nd Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. A at 2-1. 

Greif states that, because the Naperville facility's total YOM emissions have historically 

been less than 25 tpy, the facility was previously not subject to Subpart TT and currently does 

not employ any equipment to capture or destroy YOM emissions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 9. 

In past years, Greif reported emissions from the QC test process as follows: 

Year YOM Emissions (tpy) 

2006 35.2 
5 

2007 46.7 

2008 19.1 

2009 7.7 

2010 8.95 

2nd Am. Pet. at 3. 

For2010, Greif reported plant-wide emissions of9.95 tons ofVOM and 1.87 tons of 

combined hazardous air pollutant (HAP). 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. 

FESOP Permit 

Grcifs facility operates under Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP) 

No. 9707044. Condition 3 of the FESOP limits VOM emissions from the QC Test Process to 

22.8 tpy. Condition 3 also sets out specific limits totaling 1.4 tpy for the other emission units 

from the remainder of the facility, which include a paint spray booth, a caulk applicator, and ink 

printing. 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. The FESOP limits HAP emissions to I 0 tpy for any single HAP or 

25 tpy for any combination of HAPs. 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. 

Violation Notice 

On July 5, 2007, the Agency issued Violation Notice A-2007-00132 to Greif. The 

Violation Notice alleged that VOM emissions from Greifs Naperville facility's QC Test Process 

exceeded the maximum limits of22.8 tpy in Condition 3 of its FESOP. 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. 

When Greifs emissions in 2006 and 2007 exceeded its FESOP limits of22.8 tpy, the 

Agency alleged Greif triggered the 25 tpy applicability threshold of Part 218 Subpart TI. See 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(b ). The !EPA informed Greifthat even if its future VOM emissions are 

reduced below the threshold, the VOM emissions are now always subject to Part 218 Subpart 

TI, because Subpart TI is a "once in, always in" regulation. 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD 

The Act and Board rules provide that a petitioner may request, and the Board may grant, 

an adjusted standard that is different from the generally applicable standard that would otherwise 

apply to the petitioner. See 415 1LCS 5/28.1 (201 0) and generally 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

1 04.Subpart D. 

After adopting a regulation of general applicability, the Board may grant, in a 

subsequent adjudicatory determination, an adjusted standard for persons who can 

justify such an adjustment consistent with subsection (a) of Section 27 of this Act. 

In granting such adjusted standards ,the Board may impose such conditions as 

may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act. The rule-making 

provisions of the Jllinois Administrative Procedure Act and Title VII of this Act 

shall not apply to such subsequent determinations." 415 ILCS 5/28.l(a) (2010). 
6 

The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceed.ing are found at Section 28.1 of 

the Act and Section 104.Subpart D of the Board's procedural rules. 4151LCS 5/28.1 (2010); 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 104.400 et seq. The Board's procedural rules specify the required contents for 

the adjusted standard petition. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406, 104.416. After a petition for an 

adjusted standard is filed, the Agency must file its recommendation with the Board within 45 

days after the filing of the petition or amended petition, or at least 30 days before any scheduled 

hearing, whichever is earlier. See 4151LCS 5/28.l(d)(3) (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416. 

The adjusted standard proceeding is adjudicatory in nature and therefore is not subject to the 

rulemaking provisions of the Act or the IJ!inois Administrative Procedure Act (5 lLCS 100/1-1 et 

seq. (201 0). See 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (201 0); 35 Ill. Adm. Code I 01.202 (defining "adjudicatory 

proceeding"). 

Section 28.l(d)(1) of the Act and Section 104.408(a) ofthe Board's procedural rules 

require the adjusted standard petitioner to publish notice of the petition's filing by advertisement 

in a newspaper of general circulation in the area likely to be affected by the proposed adjusted 

standard. 4151LCS 5/28.1 (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(a). Publication must take place 

within 14 days after the petition is filed. Jd. The newspaper notice must indicate that any person 

may cause a public hearing to be held on the proposed adjusted standard by filing a hearing 

request with the Board within 21 days after publication. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (d)(1)(201 0); 35 111. 

Adm. Code I 04.408(b ). 

The burden of proof in an adjusted standard proceeding is on the petitioner. 415 JLCS 

5/28.l(b), (c) (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.426. Once granted, the adjusted standard, instead of 

the rule of general applicability, applies to the petitioner. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (20 I 0); 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 101.202, 1 04.400(a). In granting adjusted standards, the Board may impose 

conditions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/28.l(a) 

(2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.428(a). 

CURRENT APPLICABLE STANDARDS 

Part 218 "Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area," 

Subpart TT "Other Emission Units" of the Board's air rules is the generally applicable standard 

at issue in this adjusted standard proceeding. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a). Specifically: 

Section 218.986 Control Requirements 

Every owner or operator of an emission unit subject to this Subpart shall comply with the 

requirements of subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) below. 

a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieves an overall reduction in 

uncontro.lled VOM emissions of at least 81 percent from each emission unit, or 

(Board Note: For the purpose of this provision, an emission unit is any part or 

activity at a source of a type that by itself is subject to control requirements in 

other Subparts of this Part or 40 CFR 60, incorporated by reference in Section 

218.112, e.g., a coating line, a printing line, a process unit, a wastewater system, 
7 

or other equipment, or is otherwise any part or activity at a source.) 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.986(a). 

Subpart TT and Section 218.986 were initially adopted by the Board in RACT 

Deficiencies in the Chicago Area, R91-7 (July25, 1991), effective August 16, 1991. Section 

218.986 was last amended in RACT for Major Sources Emitting Volatile Organic Materials. in 

the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area: 25 Tons, R93-14 (January 6, 1994), effective January 

24, 1994. 

Section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act as amended in I 990 required lllinois to adopt 

reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for all areas designated nonattainment for 

ozone and classified as moderate or above. 42 U.S.C. 751 Ja(b)(2). RACT is not defined in the 

Clean Air Act but USEPA defines RACT as "the lowest emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility." 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (September 17, 1979). 

The Section I 82(b )(2) RACT requirements apply to three categories: (I) sources covered by a 

control technique guideline (CTG) issued prior to November 15, 1990; (2) sources covered by a 

CTG issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; and (3) all other major 

stationary sources ofVOM (i.e., "non-CTG sources"). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2)(A)-(C). For a 

severe nonattainment area, as the Chicago area was designated for ozone, 

1 the term "major 

source" was defined to include any stationary source which emits or has the potential to emit 

(PTE) at least 25 tons ofVOM per year. 42 U.S.C. 75lla(d). 

On June 29, 1990, USEPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (Chicago FlP) for 

six counties in the Chicago metropolitan area: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will. 

55 Fed. Reg. 26814. USEPA promulgated the Chicago FIP to correct deficiencies in Illinois' 

RACT rules as to certain YOM sources. 

2 !d. at 26815. USEPA determined that a "catch-all" 

1 Pursuant to the 1990 CAA amendments, the Chicago area was classified as severe nonattainment under the !-hour ozone standard, however, on December 30, 2008, US EPA approved 

an Agency request that the area had attained the standard. 73 Fed. Reg. 79652 (Dec. 30, 2008). 

The Board notes that in April, 2004, the Chicago area was classified as moderate nonattainment 

for the I 997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 40 CFR 81.314, 

76 Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30, 2011). The Chicago nonattainment area includes Cook, DuPage, 

Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, as well as portions of Grundy and Kendall Counties. 

!d. 

2 USEPA was required to promulgate an ozone implementation plan for the Chicago area under a 

settlement agreement entered in Wisconsin v. Reilly, No. 87-C-0395 (E.D. Wis.). 55 Fed Reg. 

26814, 26814 (June 29, 1990). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Agency filed proposed 

rules with the Board on September 29, 1989. RACT Deficiencies: Amendments to 35 111. Adm. 

Code Parts 211 and 215, R89-16. The Board adopted a portion of the proposed RACT rules on 

May I 0, 1990. However, the Board removed the proposed generic rules to a subdocket and later 

dismissed that subdocket without adopting the generic rules. R89-16 (Board orders dated 

February 8, 1990 and July 3, 1990). As a result, US EPA determined that it must promulgate 
8 

generic rule was needed to cover all major non-CTG sources. !d. at 26834. USEPA also 

determined, "to be consistent with RACT, the control requirement of this [generic] rule should 

be at least as stringent as 3.5 pounds of YOC per gallon of coating or 81 percent overall control." 

!d. Relevant here, the Chicago FIP included the following provision: 

(x) Other emission sources 

••• 

(3) Control requirements. Every owner or operator of an emission source subject 

to paragraph (x) of this section shall comply with the requirements of paragraph 

(x)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section. 

(i) Emission capture and control equipment which achieve an overall 

reduction in uncontrolled YOM emissions of at least 81 percent, or ... 

!d. at 26885, codified at 40 CFR 52.74l(x) (1990). The Chicago FIP, codified at 40 CFR 

Subpart 0, became effective June 30, 1990, and USEPA set a general compliance date of July I, 

1991. 55 Fed. Reg. at 26831. 

The Board notes that the "once in, always in" provision comes from the FIP imposing 

RACT on YOM sources in the Chicago area. See 55 Fed. Reg. 26884, June 29, 1990; 40 CFR 

52.741 (x)(ii). The "once in, always in" provision that applies to Subpart IT is found at Section 

218.980(c). 

In a policy memo, USEPA explained that without a "once in, always in" policy, facilities 

could backslide from required control levels. See May 16, 1995 memo "Potential to Emit for 

MACT Standards--Guidance on Timing Issues" from John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 3 at 9. USEPA reasoned that facilities could obtain permits, like 

a FESOP, limiting their emissions below their actual "potential to emit" and, in turn, below the 

applicability threshold for the MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants) standards. !d. This would enable facilities to increase emissions up to the 

applicability (major source) threshold, without becoming subject to the control requirements. 

The "once in, always in" policy ensures the emission reductions are permanent. !d. Although 

RACT is not specifically mentioned, the Board believes USEPA's reasoning presumably holds 

true for the RACT standards. 

On January 17, 1991, the Agency filed a proposal requiring implementation ofRACT for 

YOM sources. RACT Deficiencies in the ChiCago Area: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 

215 and the Addition of Part 218, R91-7 (July 25, 1991). This rulemaking was necessary to 

correct deficiencies in Illinois' state implementation plan (SIP) for ozone in the Chicago area. 

rules to correct all the deficiencies within the timeframe set by the settlement agreement. 55 Fed 

Reg. at 2681 5. 

3 The memo appeared at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa l/t3/memorandalpteguid.pdf (last visited 

February 28, 20 12). 
9 

I d. The Board accepted the Agency's certification that the rulemaking was federally required 

pursuant to Section 28.2 of the Environmental Protection Act. Jd. The Board stated "[t]he 

proposed regulations are intended to be identical in effect to the [Chicago FJP] promulgated by 

[US EPA]." R91-7 (Order on Second Notice, June II, 1991 ). On July 25, 199 I, the Board 

adopted, among other provisions, Part 218, Subpart TT, "Other Emission Sources." The new 

rules provided nearly identical language as subpart (x) of the Chicago FIP: 

Section 218.986 Control Requirements 

Every owner or operator of an emission source subject to this Subpart shall comply with 

the requirements of subsection (a), (b) or (c) below. 

(a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieve an overall reduction in 

uncontrolled VOM emissions of at least 81 percent, or ... 

On August 16, 1991, these rules became effective but were not yet incorporated into the Illinois 

SIP. 

The Board subsequently amended Section 218.986 on September 9, 1993 in Omnibus 

Cleanup of the Volatile Organic Material RACT Rules Applicable to Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 203.211,218 and 219, R93-9 and again on 

January 6, 1994 in Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Sources Emitting 

Volatile Organic Materials in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area: Amendments to 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code Part 211 and 218, R93-14. As a result of these rulemakings, Subpart TT Section 

218.986 provided, and currently provides: 

Section 218.986 Control Requirements 

Every owner or operator of an emission unit subject to this Subpart shall comply with the 

requirements of subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) below. 

(a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieves an overall reduction 

in uncontrolled VOM emissions of at least 81 percent from each emission 

unit, or (Board Note: For the purpose of this provision, an emission unit is any 

part or activity at a source of a type that by itself is subject to control 

requirements in other Subparts of this Part or 40 CFR 60, incorporated by 

reference in Section 218.112, e.g., a coating line, a printing line, a process 

unit, a wastewater system, or other equipment, or is otherwise any part or 

activity at a source.) 35 Ill. Adm. Code§ 218.986(a). 

The current Section 281.986 version became effective January 24, 1994. The rules promulgated 

in R93-14, including Section 281.986, were incorporated in the Illinois SIP effective November 

20, 1996. 61 Fed. Reg. 54556 (Oct. 21, 1996). 

In R93-14, the Board explained that Subparts AA, PP, QQ, RR, and TT affect "non-CTG 

sources ... whose annual emissions are between 25 tons PTE and 100 tons MTE." R93-14, slip 
10 

op. at 4 (Final Order, January 6, 1994). In that rulemaking, the Agency had identified 88 nonCTG sources in the Chicago non attainment area with emissions in that range. I d. Of those 

sources, 45 sources had actual emissions of greater than 10 tons per year. RACT was determined 

based on these 45 sources. I d. The Agency concluded that RACT for a 25-ton PTE source is 81 

percent control at each emission unit. ld. 

AGREED PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD 

In its petitions, Greif had proposed language for the adjusted standard, but I EPA 

proposed slightly different language in the Agency Recommendation. At hearing, Greif agreed 

with the language in the Agency Recommendation for adoption by the Board as follows: Tr. at 

16. 

1. The adjusted standard applies to the emission of volatile organic material (YOM) 

into the atmosphere from the automated QC Test Process line at Greif's fiber 

drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, 

DuPage County, Illinois (the Facility). The Facility manufactures fiber drums. 

Some of the fiber drums are lined with polyethylene to meet customer 

specifications, particularly for storage and transport of food-grade products. Lined 

drums must be tested to ensure the integrity of the polyethylene lining. That 

testing is performed at the QC Test Process, which consists of the following 

equipment and steps: 

a. An automated, mechanical wand is lowered into each lined drum on a 

conveyor system. The wand is calibrated so that each spray releases about 

the same amount of QC test fluid into each drum. 

b. The drums then are conveyed to the QC inspection station where the 

interior of the drum is visually inspected for pinholes. 

c. The drum next is conveyed to a drying oven where most of the remaining 

QC test fluid is evaporated. After leaving the drying oven, any remaining 

QC test fluid is vacuumed from the drum and then the drum is wiped dry. 

YOM in the QC test fluid is emitted throughout the QC Test Process as 

well as in the drying oven. 

2. The Facility will reduce YOM emissions from its automated QC Test Process by 

using a test fluid composed of no more than 45 percent denatured alcohol by 

weight and no less than 55 percent water by weight. 

3. The Facility will calibrate the automated QC Test Process equipment to spray an 

average of no more than 48 grams of QC test fluid per drum with compliance to 

be measured at least once per calendar quarter by the following procedure. 

a. Weigh a plastic bag on a gram scale to determine the weight of the bag. 
II 

b. Place the plastic bag over the spray head of the wand of the QC Test 

Process and secure it in place with a rubber band or binder clip. 

c. Cycle the QC Test Process by passing a drum through the process in the 

normal manner of operation with the plastic bag capturing the QC test 

fluid. Remove the plastic bag from the spray head of the wand of the QC 

Test Process and weigh it on the same gram scale used in step a. 

d. Calculate the weight of QC test fluid sprayed as the difference between the 

weight determined in step c and the weight determined in step a. 

e. Repeat steps a. through d. for five cycles of the QC Test Process. 

Calculate the average weight of QC test fluid sprayed per cycle and 

compare that average to the standard of an average of no more than 48 

grams of QC test fluid per drum. 

4. All records and logs required by this adjusted standard shall be retained at a 

readily accessible location at the source for at least five years from the date of 

entry and shall be made available for inspection and copying by the Illinois EPA 

or USEPA upon request. Any records retained in an electronic format (e.g., 

computer) shall be capable of being retrieved and printed on paper during normal 

source office hours so as to be able to respond to an Jllinois EPA or USEPA 

request for records during the course of a source inspection. 

5. The Facility will maintain records of its QC test fluid usage that will allow the 

monthly calculation of the amount ofQC test fluid used during the month and the 

calculation of YOM emissions on a 12-month rolling total basis for comparison to 

annual YOM limits in the FESOP. To allow these calculations, the Facility will: 

a. Record the volume of QC test fluid held as inventory on the first and last 

day of each month. 

b. Maintain records of the volume ofQC test fluid received at the Facility 

during each month. 

c. The volume of QC test fluid used for a month shall equal the inventory 

volume on the first day of the month plus the volume received at the 

Facility during the month, less the volume in inventory on the last day of 

the month. 

d. The volume used during a month calculated in step c shall be multiplied 

by the YOM content of the QC test fluid (in pounds per unit of volume) to 

compute the weight (in pounds) of YOM emitted during the month. 
12 

e. Using the emissions ofVOM in pounds calculated for each month in step 

d, the Facility will compute the 12-month rolling YOM emissions for the 

QC Test Process and report those results to Facility management. 

6. Greif will continue to investigate the availability of alternative QC test fluids with 

lower YOM content. Greif will incorporate such lower YOM QC test fluids into 

its automated QC Test Process provided that the lower YOM QC test fluids allow 

visual detection of pinholes or other tears or imperfections in the drum linings 

within an acceptable period of time and does not result in any negative product 

quality impacts. 

7. The proposed adjusted standard will not affect the calculation of Greifs potential 

Emissions Reduction Market System ("ERMS") baseline or its ERMS allotment if 

Greifs Naperville plant should participate in the ERMS program. 

8. Environmental staff of Greifs parent company will conduct a formal training 

session for Naperville facility personnel on the requirements of the FESOP and 

the internal procedures for tracking compliance with FESOP conditions. 

9. Emissions and operation of the QC Test Process shall not exceed the following 

limits: 

YOM Usage 

YOM Emissions 

(Tons/Mo) 

2.3 

2.3 

(Tons/Yr) 

22.8 

22.8 

These limits are based on the maximum material usage and the maximum YOM 

content. Compliance with the annual limit for the QC Test Process shall be 

determined from a running total of 12 months of data. Rec. at 9-11. 

GREIF'S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE, 

ALTERNATIVES, AND ANALYSIS 

Technological Feasibility 

Compliance with the Existing RACT Standard 

Greif commissioned a consulting engineer, Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE, to conduct "a 

RACT Study to evaluate whether various emission contro.l options for the QC Test Process 

satisfy RACT control requirements in [35111. Adm. Code§ 218.986(a)]" (RACT Study). 2nd 

Am. Pet. at 4. In order to meet the 81 percent capture and control requirement of Section 

218.986(a), Greif explained that an effective capture system would require a tunnel enclosure 

over the entire 165-foot conveyor system starting at the QC spray station and extending over the 

drum paint oven. 2nd Am. Pet. at I 0, Exh. A at 1-1, 3-1, Tr. at 13. Ductwork would then 

connect the enclosure to a control device. !d. This type of capture system would capture 90 
13 

percent of the YOM emissions and was assumed for each of the add-on air pollution controls 

discussed below. ld. 

Add-On Air Pollution Controls 

The RACT Study evaluated three options for capture and control systems: (I) capture 

plus recuperative thermal oxidizers (RTO), (2) capture plus carbon adsorbers, and (3) capture 

plus biofilters and material substitution. 2nd Am. Pet. at .1 6. The RACT Study found each 

option would be capable of achieving at least 81 percent capture and control as required by 

Section 218.986(a). ld. With the high volume of air that would need to be treated from the 165-

foot enclosure, Greif noted that the control equipment would also need to be commensurately 

sized. Exh. A at 1-2, Tr. at 12. Greif also noted that the control options could result in increased 

emissions of other pollutants as well as increased health and safety risks. 2nd Am. Pet. at 6, Exh. 

A at 1-2 to 1-3. 

For the first option, the RACT Study explained that RTOs heat an exhaust stream to a 

temperature of 1600°F to oxidize (bum) and destroy YOM in the exhaust. 2nd Am. Pet. at 11. 

The RTO system evaluated has a heat recovery rate as high as 60 percent and requires less 

natural gas than traditional incinerators. I d. However, the use of natural gas generates emissions 

ofNOx. CO, and small quantities of YOM and HAPs, which would partially offset YOM 

reductions that would be achieved. Jd., Exh. A at 1-2 to 1-3,3-1. 

For the second option, the RACT Study characterized carbon adsorbers as systems for 

controlling low to medium YOM concentrations. 2nd Am. Pet. at 12. With two carbon beds, 

carbon adsorbers use one bed to treat the exhaust emissions while the other is being regenerated 

with steam. ]d. Greif explained that carbon adsorbers work best with YOMs that are not soluble 

in water. ld. Greif pointed out that the QC test fluid is water soluble, so the regeneration fluid 

would likely be sent to the local sewage district. Jd. During treatment at the sewage district, the 

YOMs would likely be released into the atmosphere, which Greif contends would not achieve a 

true reduction in YOM. 2nd Am. Pet. at 12, Exh. A at 3-1 to 3-2. Additionally, Greif expressed 

concern for the health and safety risks associated with carbon adsorbers. 2nd Am. Pet. at 12. 

Greif explained that ketones found in the denatured alcohol QC test fluid present a risk of fire 

caused by reactions between the ketones and carbon in the beds. !d. Although water deluge 

systems are used to control such fires, Greif remained concerned about the increased risk. !d., 

Exh. A at 1-2 to 1-3,3-1 to 3-2. 

For the third option, the RACT Study evaluated biofilters in combination with material 

substitution (dilution). 2nd Am. Pet. at 13. Greif explained that biofilters can be used to reduce 

YOM emissions but would not be able to achieve the 81 percent capture and control requirement 

alone. Jd. To meet the 81 percent requirement would require another control technology or 

dilution of the QC test fluid with water. Jd. Since biofilters must be heated to maintain 

performance during the winter, Greif points out that natural gas heat would increase NO, 

emissions, partially offsetting the benefit from reductions in YOM emissions. Jd., Ex h. A at 1-2 

to 1-3, 3-2. 
14 

Reducing YOM through Material Substitution and Reduction 

The RACT Study also looked at two options for reducing VOM emissions through 

material substitution: (I) mixing the QC test fluid with acetone or (2) mixing the QC test fluid 

with water. 2nd Am. Pet. at 13-14, Exh. A at 3-3, Tr. at 14-15. The RACT Study found that the 

first option for mixing the QC test fluid with acetone would not be technically feasible since 

acetone would dissolve the gasket material that seals the bottom of the drum to the side walls. 

!d. 

The second option of mixing the QC test fluid with water was found to satisfy product 

quality standards as well as a reduction in YOM emissions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 14-15, Ex h. A at 3-2 

to 3-3, Tr. at 15. Greif experimented with five potential dilution scenarios of denatured alcohol 

mixed with water: 80%/20%, 70%/30%, 50%/50%, 40%/60%, and 45%/55% by weight. 2nd 

Am. Pet. at 14. The test with the least amount of denatured alcohol (40%/60%) failed to identify 

flaws in the liners within an acceptable time period, however, the 45/55 mixture detected all 

pinholes within 50 seconds of spraying. !d. at 14-15. Based on the test runs, Greif determined 

that the 45%/55% dilution was the highest dilution percentage that would allow the plant to meet 

the requirements for customer quality assurance. !d., Tr. at 15. 

By mixing water with the QC test fluid in a ratio of 45 percent denatured alcohol to 55 

percent water, the RACT study concluded that a 55 percent reduction in YOM would result. 2nd 

Am. Pet. at 4-5. In addition, Greif determined that it could reduce the amount ofQC test fluid 

sprayed on each drum to an amount not to exceed 48 grams. ld. at 15. Greif stated that the 

proposed modifications would reduce YOM emissions from Greifs QC Test Process by 70 

percent on a unit basis and achieve annual emissions below the 22.8 tpy limit in Condition 3 of 

the FESOP. Jd. The RACT Study concluded that the 45/55 QC test fluid mixture constitutes 

RACT for Greifs QC Test Process at its Naperville facility. !d., Exh. A at 4-5 to 4-6. 

Greif noted that it has already implemented the water-diluted QC Test Process in May 

2008, and found it successful in detecting drum defects without product harm. 2nd Am. Pet at 

15. 

Economic Reasonableness 

The RACT Study estimated the following costs for each capture and control option 

(including enclosure and ductwork) as well as the material substitution option: 

Option 

RTO 

Carbon Adsorber 

Biofilter 

Water-Diluted Solvent 

Capital Cost 

$1,752,000 

$1,170,000 

$1,800,000 

$0 

2nd Am. Pet. at 4, 12-15, Exh. A at 1-2. 

Cost per ton of VOM controlled 

$17,672 

$12,594 

$11,667 

-$541 
15 

The RACT Study stated that costs for the capture and control options included 

construction of the enclosure over the 16-foot long conveyor system and associated ductwork. 

2nd Am. Pet. Exh. A at 1-2, Tr. at 12. With the high volume of air that would need to be treated 

from the 165-foot long enclosure, the RACT Study noted that the control equipment would also 

need to be larger, impacting the cost. ld 

Greif stated that the costs for the capture and control technologies exceed what the Board 

considered economically unreasonable in previous adjusted standards. 2nd Am. Pet. at 4, 23. 

Greif cited the following cases in support of this argument: In rePetition ofFormel1ndustries, 

Inc., AS 00-13, slip op. at 9 (Jan. 18, 2001) ($10,911- $18,041 per ton of YOM reduced); In re 

Petition of Ford Motor Company (Chicago Assembly Plant), AS 00-06, slip op. at 5 (April6, 

2000) (citing In rePetition of Louis Berkman. AS 97-5 (Dec. 4, 1997) aff'd sub nom EPA v. 

PCB. 308111. App. 3d 741,746 & 752-53,721 N.E.2d 723,726-27 & 731 (2d Dist. 1999) ($1,734 

in 1996 dollars per ton of reductions)); In re Joint Petition of Reynolds Metals Company and the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. AS 91-8 (Sept. 21, 1995) ($40,000 per ton of YOM 

reduced). 2nd Am. Pet. at 23. The RACT Study notes that $1,734 in 1996 dollars would be 

approximately $2,249 in 2008 dollars. Exh. A at 4-5. 

Accordingly, Greif concluded that add-on controls and achieving a capture and control 

rate of at least 81 percent of the YOM emissions from its QC Test Process is not economically 

reasonable for Greif. 2nd Am. Pet. at 26. Rather, the RACT Study found the option of using the 

45/55 water-diluted QC test fluid would actually be less expensive than the previously used test 

fluid of I 00 percent denatured alcohol. Exh. A at 3-3. Greif concluded, "[T]he RACT Study 

demonstrates that dilution of the QC test fluid is the only technically feasible and economically 

reasonable alternative." 2nd Am. Pet at 9-10. 

Impact on the Environment 

Petition 

Greif explained that DuPage County, where Greifs Naperville facility is located, is part 

of the Metropolitan Chicago Interstate Air Quality Control Region. See 40 CFR 81.14. Greif 

stated that this area is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone for both the !-hour and 8-

hour standards under 40 CFR 81.314. 2nd Am. Pet. at 8, 16. 

Greif stated that its YOM emissions from the QC Test Process have a "minimal impact 

on air quality." 2nd Am. Pet. at 18. Greif compared the maximum permitted emissions limits of 

22.8 tpy to the 2009 Metropolitan Chicago area and State-wide YOM point source emissions of 

11,884 and 54,668 tons, respectively. ld at 18-19. Greif calculated that YOM emissions from 

the QC Test Process would account for 0.19 percent of the Metropolitan Chicago YOM point 

source emissions and 0.04 percent of the State-wide YOM point source emissions. I d. 

Greif cited the following previous cases where the Board granted adjusted standards for 

Subpart TT sources with YOM emissions higher than Greif: In rePetition of Ford Motor Co. 

(Chicago Assembly Plant), AS 00-6, slip op. at 5 (April 6, 2000) (VOM emissions were limited 
16 

to 390 tpy); and In rePetition of Alumax. Inc., AS 92-13, slip op. at 9 (Sept. I, 1994) (YOM 

emissions were 94 tpy using the adjusted standard). 2nd Am. Pet. at 19. 

Greif explained that the RTO option would result in emissions ofNOx, CO, YOM and 

HAP, the carbon adsorbers would result in an additional wastewater stream with subsequent 

YOM release, and the biofilters would result in increased NOx emissions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 12-13. 

On the other hand, Greif noted that the proposed adjusted standard relying on a water-diluted QC 

test fluid is not expected to change the nature or volume of waste or wastewater from the 

Naperville facility. 2nd Am. Pet. at 20. Greif also cited to previous cases where the Board 

recognized concerns regarding capture and control technologies whose alternate emissions 

contribute to ozone formation or hazardous waste generation, offsetting the environmental 

benefit of YOM reductions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 19, citing In rePetition of Alumax.lnc., AS 92-13, 

slip op. at 7 (Sept. I, 1994); and In re Joint Petition of Quantum Chemical Cornoration, US! 

Division (and the Jllinois Environmental Protection Agency), AS 92-14, slip op. at 9 (Oct. 7, 

1993). 2nd Am. Pet. at 19. 

Air Quality Impact Analysis 

On November I, 2011, Greif submitted their "Air Quality Impact Analysis of the YOC 

[Volatile Organic Compound] Emissions from the Greif Packaging Facility in Naperville, lllinois 

Using the Scheffe Tables" (Analysis). Greif commissioned Mr. Ponder to perform the Analysis 

to quantify the air quality impact associated with the proposed adjusted standard. The Analysis 

was designed specifically to evaluate the air quality impact associated with the difference in 

YOM emissions between the proposed adjusted standard and compliance with the 81 percent 

capture and control requirement of Subpart IT. Analysis at 2. 

The Analysis utilized the "VOCINOx Point Source Screening Tables" by Richard D. 

Scheffe, USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated September 1988. Mr. 

Ponder explained that the Scheffe method is a screening tool used to quantify an "ozone 

increment", the approximate increase in ozone caused by a single facility's YOM emissions. 

Analysis at I. The Scheffe method requires two facility-specific inputs: YOC or YOM, also 

referred to as non-methane organic compound (NMOC), emissions and NOx emissions. Analysis 

at 2. Based on the ratio of YOM (NMOC) to NOx, the Scheffe method can be used to determine 

the impact of the emissions on ambient ozone levels. Tr. at 20. 

For the YOM input, the Analysis assumed the adjusted standard would achieve a 

reduction of73.1 percent based on actual reductions achieved during 2009 and 2010 using the 

water-diluted QC test fluid. Analysis at 2, Response to Hearing Questions at 2. The Analysis 

multiplied the difference in percent reductions (81 percent- 73.1 percent) by the theoretical 

maximum YOM emissions based on usage of 84.8 tpy as follows: 84.8 tpy x (0.81 - 0.731) = 

6.7 tpy YOM. Jd., Tr. at 28. Therefore, the analysis used 6.7 tpy as the maximum difference in 

YOM emissions between the adjusted standard and compliance with the 81 percent requirement. 

Jd., Tr. at 27-30. Mr. Ponder explained that the theoretical maximum emissions of 84.8 was 

based on the FESOP limit of 22.8 tpy divided by one minus the percent reduction assumed for 

the adjusted standard of 73.1 percent as follows: 84.8 tpy = 22.8 tpy I (1-0. 731 ). Response to 
17 

Hearing Questions at 2, Tr. at 28. Greif indicated the facility has never emitted 84.8 tpy. Tr. at 

27-28. 

For the NOx input, the Analysis used 0.1992 tpy based on the facility's 2009 emission 

inventory. Analysis at 2. Mr. Ponder then calculated the necessary YOM (NMOC) to NOx ratio 

by dividing 6.7 tpy by 0.1992 tpy, resulting in 33.63. I d. 

Using the Scheffe method, the Analysis referred to Table 2 entitled "Urban based ozone 

increment as a function ofNMOC emissions and NMOCINOx ratios" because of the facility's 

location. Analysis at I. With a YOM (NMOC) to NOx ratio of 33.63, the Analysis applied the 

first column in the table for ratios greater than 20.7 YOM (NMOC)INOx. I d. at 2. According to 

the table, the ozone increment for emissions with a YOM (NMOC)INOx ratio greater than 20.7 

and YOM (NMOC) emissions equal to 50 tpy would be II parts per billion (ppb). Id. Since 50 

tpy YOM was the lowest value in the table, the Analysis used linear interpolation to estimate the 

ozone increment associated with 6.7 tpy YOM as follows: {(6.7-0) x (1.1-0) x 10 I (50-0)} + 0 ~ 

1.4 7 ppb. I d. 

The Analysis then proceeded to add the 1.47 ppb ozone increment to the baseline 1-hour 

ambient ozone measurement for the area. Analysis at 2. The highest baseline !-hour ozone 

measurement at the Lisle station for 2007-2009 was 99 ppb, and the highest of the fourth highest 

measurements was 80 ppb. Jd. The analysis concluded tbat the addition of the 1.47 ppb ozone 

increment would not result in an exceedance of the 120 ppb 1-hour standard at the Lisle 

monitoring station. Jd. 

Similarly, the Analysis added the 1.47 ppb ozone increment to the baseline 8-hour 

average ozone concentration for the area. Analysis at 3. The average of the fourth highest 8-

hour measurements at the Lisle station for 2007-2009 was 62.7 ppb. Jd. The Analysis found that 

adding the 1.47 ppb ozone increment to 62.7 ppb would result in an ozone concentration of 64.17 

ppb, which would be less than the 8-hour standard of 75 ppb established in 2008. !d. 

The Analysis pointed out that the ozone increments calculated using the Scheffe method 

are conservative, such that estimates are expected to exceed actual ozone formation during 

episodic events. Analysis at 1-2. The Analysis concluded, "[a]ccordingly, the proposed adjusted 

standard should not interfere with Illinois' ability to attain the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS." 

Jd. at 3. Mr. Ponder added that the 1.47 ppb ozone increment would not cause or contribute to 

violations of the ozone NAAQS or delay efforts to attain the NAAQS in a timely manner. 

Response to Hearing Questions at 3. 

Substantially Different Factors 

Greif argues that "the factors relating to Greif's ability to reduce YOM emissions are 

substantially and significantly different from any the Board may have relied on in adopting 

Subpart TT." 2nd Am. Pet. at 20; Greif Brief at 7. Greif makes four points in support of this 

argument. 
18 

First, Greif states that the Board did not rely on any specific industry factors in adopting 

Subpart TT, and specifically did not consider the drum manufacturing business. 2nd Am. Pet. at 

20-21; Greif Brief at 7. Greif states that Subpart TT is a "catch-all" regulation applicable to 

YOM sources not covered elsewhere in Part 218. 2nd Am. Pet. at 21; Greif Brief at 7. Greif 

cites to the Board's discussion in Petition of Ford Motor Co., AS 00-06 (April6, 2000), for the 

proposition that the Board did not consider factors relating to any specific industry or practice in 

adopting Subpart TT. !d. 

Second, Greif asserts that its "unique QC Test Process" is substantially different from 

factors the Board may have relied on in promulgating Section 218.986(a). 2nd Am. Pet. at 22. 

Greif states that constructing capture equipment over an extended conveyor line is particularly 

complex for its facility. !d. Further, the conveyor cannot be totally enclosed because personnel 

need to be able to "maintain physical access to the drums for visual inspection." !d. Greifs 

ability to manage YOM emissions by diluting test fluid and reducing the amount of test fluid 

sprayed into drums is different from factors the Board may have considered in promulgating the 

rule. !d. 

Third, Greif asserts that the physical layout of the Facility and slow evaporation of test 

fluid are substantially and significantly different from other manufacturing activities that may 

have been considered by the Board. 2nd Am. Pet. at 21; Greif Brief at 9. These factors limit 

Greifs ability to capture and control YOM emissions through add-on controls. 2nd Am. Pet. at 

21. Greif states that the testing fluid begins to evaporate while being sprayed in the spray 

station. 2nd Am. Pet. at 22; Greif Brief at 9. Evaporation continues while being conveyed to the 

inspection area, while awaiting inspection, while being conveyed to the drum paint oven, and 

possibly afterward. !d. The drums must also be available for visual inspection. !d. Greif argues 

that these factors necessitate a complex and large capture system that the Board did not consider 

when adopting Subpart TT. 2nd Am. Pet. at 23; Greif Brief at 9. 

Fourth, Greif asserts that the cost to achieve 81 percent capture and control under Section 

218.986(a) for the QC Test Process "would exceed the threshold cost level the Board previously 

has found to be economically reasonable." 2nd Am. Pet. at 21. Greifs RACT Study considered 

three capture and control systems: (1) capture plus recuperative thennal oxidizers, (2) capture 

plus carbon adsorbers, and (3) capture plus biofilters. 2nd Am. Pet. at 23; Greif Brief at 3. Each 

of these technologies could achieve at least 81 percent capture and control of YOM emissions. 

!d. Greif estimates that these technologies range in cost from $11,667 to $17,672 per ton of 

annual YOM removed. !d. Greif cites to the following Board opinions to conclude that the costs 

estimated in Greifs RACT Study "exceed the threshold cost level the Board previously has 

found to be economically unreasonable": In re Petition of Fonnellndustries, Inc., AS 00-13 

(January 18, 2001) ($10,911-$18,041 perton of YOM reduced); In rePetition of the Louis 

Berkman Co., AS 97-5 (December 4, 1997), affirmed by Jllinois Environmental Protection 

Agency v. Pollution Control Board and The Louis Berkman Co., 308111. App. 3d 741, 746, 721 

N.E.2d 723, 726-27 (1999) ($1734 average per ton reduced); In re Joint Petition of Reynolds 

Metals Company and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, AS 91-8 (September 21, 1995) 

($40,000 per ton of YOM reduced). 2nd Am. Pet. at 23. 
19 

Consistency with Federal Law 

Greif states that its proposed adjusted standard constitutes RACT for the Facility and 

therefore is consistent with the federal CAA. 2nd Am. Pet. at 25. Greif notes that Section 110 of 

the federal CAA grants individual states the authority to promulgate a plan for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of air quality standards subject to approval by USEPA. I d. 

Greif explained that if the Board grants the adjusted standard, the Agency will need to 

request USEPA approval in the form of a SIP revision. However, Greif noted that the adjusted 

standard would become effective at the State level immediately upon granting by the Board. 2nd 

Am. Pet. at 7 citing to In rePetition of Alumax, AS 92-13, slip op. at 4 (September I, 1994); 

Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Sources Emitting Volatile Organic 

Materials in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area: 25 Tons, R93-14, slip op. (Second Notice) 

at 5-6 (November 18, 1993). 

AGENCY RECOMMENDATION 

On October II, 20 II, the Agency filed its recommendation that the Board grant the relief 

requested in Greifs second amended adjusted standard petition, subject to listed conditions. 

Rec. at 9-11. At hearing, Greif agreed with the language in the recommendation for adoption by 

the Board. Tr. at 16. 

The Agency alleged that Greif became subject to the 81 percent capture and control 

requirements because Subpart TT is a "once in-always in" regulation. Rec. at 4. Therefore, the 

Agency states Greif is still subject to the requirements of Section 218.986(a) even if plant-wide 

emissions are reduced below the applicability threshold. Jd. 

The Agency did not accept Greifs assertion that granting the petition will have "minimal 

impact on air quality." Rec. at 7, quoting 2nd Am. Pet. at 18. The Agency states, 

the Agency does not accept this argument on its face, as almost any individual 

source could make the same claim, and it is the aggregate of sources in the area 

that causes ozone nonattainment. However, the technical factors in this instance 

and the emission reductions Greif has already made offset the Agency's concern 

in this regard. Rec. at 7-8. 

On January 12,2012, the Agency filed answers to questions from the Board's technical 

staff at hearing, clarifying its recommendation. Tr. at 31-32. As to whether the Agency 

considered the increment of I .47 ppb "potentially significant," the Agency stated: 

[USEPA] has not defined a level of significance for ozone. However, the Agency 

reviewed the impact of an increment of 1.47 [ppb] on the current air quality in the 

area. For 2007-2009, the one-hour design value at Lisle, the closest monitoring 

site to the facility, is 70.7 [ppb]. The Agency believes that an increase of 1.47 

[ppb] to the design value will not cause the violation of 120 [ppb] one-hour 

[NAAQS] for ozone. Also, the Agency believes that adding 1.47 [ppb] to the 
20 

design value of62.7 [ppb] for 8-hour ozone standard (2007-2009) at Lisle 

monitoring site will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 8-hour ozone 

[NAAQS] of75 [ppb]. Agency Answers at 1. 

The Agency further stated: 

The Agency believes that granting of this proposed adjusted standard will not 

cause or contribute to violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for ozone or delay the Agency's efforts to attain or maintain the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for ozone in a timely manner. Agency Answers at 2. 

In its recommendation, the Agency strongly disputed Greifs assertion that other Board 

decisions set a RACT cost threshold applicable here. Rec. at 11-12. Specifically, the Agency 

questioned the relevance of an average cost of control in Petition of Ford to Greif. The Agency 

pointed out that the $1,734 figure cited in Petition of Ford was discussed in context with cases 

concerning metal coating facilities in attainment areas. Jd. As to costs, the Agency explained 

that the $1,734 figure in Petition of Ford actually represented an average figure, noting that the 

Board stated, "costs cannot be deemed unreasonable simply because they exceed the average." 

ld. at II, quoting In rePetition of Ford, AS 97-5, slip op. at I 0 (Dec. 4, 1997). Additionally, the 

Agency argued that the basis of the $1,734 figure (in 1996 dollars) was derived from a 1980 

figure of $1,032 per ton and does not represent the cost of RACT today which has continued to 

increase as tighter control requirements have been put in place. Rec. at 11-12. 

The Agency went on to explain, "RACT is not a cost issue alone." Rec. at 12. The 

Agency stated that RACT might be different even for facilities producing the same product in the 

same quantity because each facility might have unique factors. ld. The Agency further stated 

that the unique factors guide the Board in determining RACT for a particular facility. ld. In this 

case, the Agency stressed that Greifs definition ofRACT should be considered specific to the 

Naperville facility, and not be considered RACT for all other sources which have the same costs. 

Jd. In this regard, the Agency explained a specific dollar figure for RACT is not warranted, 

stating, "[a]ny dollar figure would only obscure the site-specific nature of each RACT decision." 

Rec. at 12. The Agency concluded by saying, "The [Agency] believes that Greif qualifies for an 

adjusted standard based upon its calculation ofRACT, but it is the RACT for this facility, not 

RACT for all sources which have the same costs." Jd. 

The Agency explained that if the adjusted standard is adopted by the Board, the Agency 

will submit it to USEPA as a revision to the SIP to comply with federal law. Rec. at 8. The 

Agency indicated that both the Agency and Greif have discussed the petition with USEPA, and 

USEPA provided comments. ld. At hearing, Greif elaborated that during discussions between 

the Agency, USEPA, and Greif itself, USEPA raised concerns regarding consistency of the 

proposed adjusted standard with Section II 0 of the CAA, which addresses the anti-backsliding 

provision related to SIP revisions. Tr. at 33. Greif stated that USEPA was ultimately satisfied in 

that regard when Condition 9 was added to the proposed adjusted standard language. ld. at 33-

34. Condition 9 sets the monthly and annual YOM limits in tons per month or tpy. Jd. at 34. 

Greif noted that those limits are identical to limits in its current FESOP. I d. 
21 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Board agrees with Greif and the Agency that the regulation of general applicability at 

35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) does not specify a level of justification for an adjusted standard. 

2nd Am. Pet. at 8; Rec. at 5. Therefore, pursuant to Section 28.l(c) of the Act, the burden of 

proof is on the petitioner to demonstrate that: 

1. Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different from 

the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable 

to that petitioner; 

2. The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard; 

3. The requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects 

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the 

Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and 

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

5/28.I(c) (2010); 35 111. Adm. Code§ 104.426(a). 

DISCUSSION 

Greif seeks relief from the Board's 81 percent control and capture RACT requirement 

under Section 218.986(a) in the form of an adjusted standard. Greif argued that achieving a 

capture and control rate of at least 81 percent of the YOM emissions from its QC Test Process is 

not economically reasonable for Greif due to the large enclosure that would need to be 

constructed over its entire 165-foot conveyor system and the high volume of air that would need 

to be treated. 2nd Am. Pet. at I 0. Accordingly, Greif requested to apply a specific definition of 

RACT to its facility in lieu of the 8 I percent capture and control requirement. !d. at 26. 

Substantially and Significantly Different Factors 

Section 182(b )(2) ofthe CAA requires states to adopt RACT for all major sources of 

YOM in ozone nonattainment areas with the intention of achieving compliance with the ozone 

NAAQS. USEPA stated, "[t]he primary purpose of [35 III. Adm. Code § 218] is to satisfy the 

requirements in section I 82(b) of the [CAA] that VOC RACT rules be adopted for 

nonattainment areas for the source categories covered by the CTG documents issued by EPA in 

2006, 2007, and 2008." 76 Fed. Reg. 74015, November 30, 2011. 

US EPA defined RACT as "the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility." 76 Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30,201 1), 

referring to 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (Sept. I 7, 1979). The definition ofRACT at 40 CFR 51.1 00( o) 

provides: 

Reasonably available control technology (RACT) means devices, systems, 

process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that are reasonably 

available taking into account: 
22 

(1) The necessity of imposing such controls in order to attain and 

maintain a national ambient air quality standard; 

(2) The social, environmental, and economic impact of such controls; 

and 

(3) Alternative means of providing for attainment and maintenance of 

such standard. (This provision defines RACT for the purposes of 

§51.341(b) only.) 40 CFR 51.100(o) 

For many source categories, USEPA has written CTG documents describing information 

about air pollution control techniques for YOM in accordance with Subsection I 08 of the CAA 

that are used to determine RACT. 85 U.S.C. 7408. However, USEPA recognized that the 

category-specific CTGs would not cover all major sources. 55 Fed. Reg. 26814,26834 (June 29, 

1990). US EPA stated, "[i]n order to obtain the required [YOM] emission reductions, [air 

pollution control] agencies are required to establish RACT for source categories not already 

covered by [US]EPA's Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) in addition to tightening RACT for 

source categories for which RACT has already been defined." "Beyond YOC RACT CTG 

Requirements," USEP A Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (April 1995), EPA-453/R95-0104 at 1-1. 

For major sources in the Chicago area not covered by the CTGs, USEPA promulgated a 

"catch-all" generic rule as 40 CFR 52.741(x), Other Emission Sources. 55 Fed. Reg. 26834 

(June 29, 1990). The Board later promulgated Part 218, Subpart TT: Other Emission Units and 

it was identical to 40 CFR 52.741 (x). Greif also noted this, stating, "Subpart TT of Part 218 is 

essentially a 'catch-all' applicable to YOM sources that are not governed by other subparts of 

Part 218." 2nd Am. Pet. at 21. In adopting the Chicago FIP, USEPA explained the need for 

subsection (x) to cover sources not already covered by USEPA's CTGs: 

US EPA wishes to point out that a "catch-all" generic rule is needed for the 

regulatory approach chosen by the State. This is because the Illinois categoryspecific approach may not cover all major non-CTG sources for the following 

reasons. First, the existing emission inventories may not be accurate with respect 

to actual emissions or maximum theoretical emissions, before add-on controls. 

Second, USEPA guidance clarifying existing policy on major non-CTG 

applicability was not established until May 25, 1988, when the Blue BookiSJ was 

released. This date is after the date when non-CTG rules were developed for 

many areas. Third, there is no compelling incentive for states to ensure that they 

4 "Beyond YOC RACT CTG Requirements" USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (April 1995), EPA-453/R-95-0 I 0 appeared at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc 1/dir1/byndract.pdf (last visited February 28, 20 12). 

5 Reference to the "Blue Book" refers to the May 25, 1988, USEPA document entitled "Issues 

Relating to YOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations". 55 Fed. Reg. 26815 

(June 29,1990). 
23 

have identified and developed RACT regulations for all major non-CTG sources. 

Consequently, a backstop generic major non-CTG rule is needed for Illinois. This 

rule would apply to all sources that should be subject to a major non-CTG rule, 

based upon Blue Book applicability criteria, only if the source is not already 

covered by a non-CTG source category rule. To be consistent with RACT, the 

control requirement of this rule should be at least as stringent as 3.5 pounds of 

YOC per gallon of coating or 81 percent overall control. Adoption of such a rule 

presents virtually no administrative drawbacks (sources covered by an existing 

non-CTG rule will not be affected) and produces potentially significant 

environmental benefits. 55 Fed. Reg. 26814, 26834 (June 29, 1990) 

The Board notes that the 81 percent requirement in Part 218.986(a) is consistent with 

RACT rules for three other miscellaneous categories in Part 218: 218.926 (a) [miscellaneous 

fabricated product manufacturing processes]; 218.946(a) [miscellaneous formulation 

manufacturing processes]; and 218.966(a) [miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 

processes]; as well as industry specific categories, e.g. 218.686(a)(l) and (b)(!) [aerosol can 

fiBing]. Based on USEPA's statement above, the 81 percent capture and control requirement of 

218.986(a) is intended to be at least as stringent as the control requirements for these other 

categories. 

The Board finds that the issues concerning the control of emissions at Greifs plant were 

not anticipated when the Board promulgated the generic 81 percent rule in Section 218.986(a). 

Therefore, the Board finds that factors relating to Greifs plant are substantiaBy and significantly 

different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable 

to Greif. 

Justification of Adjusted Standard 

As summarized above, Greif presented a RACT Study which evaluated options to 

achieve compliance with the 81 percent requirement as weB as alternatives. The RACT Study 

evaluated three options for capture and control systems: (I) capture plus recuperative thermal 

oxidizers (RTO), (2) capture plus carbon adsorbers, and (3) capture plus biofilters and material 

substitution. The RACT Study found each option would be capable of achieving at least 81 

percent capture and control as required by Section 218.986(a). However, Greif argued that the 

costs would not be economically reasonable. 2nd Am. Pet. at I 6, 26. With the high volume of 

air that would need to be treated from the I 65-foot enclosure, Greif noted that the control 

equipment would also need to be commensurately sized. Exh. A at 1-2, Tr. at 12. As such, 

estimated costs ranged from $17,672 per ton of YOM controlled for an RTO to $12,594 perton 

for a carbon adsorber, to $11,667 per ton for a biofilter. 2nd Am. Pet. at 4, 12-I 5, Ex h. A at I -2. 

In addition to the economic drawbacks, Greif noted that the capture and control options 

could result in increased emissions of other poButants as weB as increased health and safety 

risks. 2nd Am. Pet. at 6, Exh. A at 1-2 to 1-3. 

The Board notes that for YOM emission sources under Subpart TT that cannot achieve 

the 81 percent requirement, US EPA indicated that the source "would have to develop a 
24 

reasonable control plan and submit it for approval as a SIP or FIP revision." 55 Fed. Reg. 26814, 

26835 (June 29, 1990). In this regard, Greif has proposed an alternative to capture and control 

that would reduce YOM emissions through material substitution and use reduction. By mixing 

water with the QC test fluid in a ratio of 45 percent denatured alcohol to 55 percent water and 

reducing the amount of QC test fluid sprayed on each drum, Greif stated that the proposed 

modifications would reduce YOM emissions from Greif's QC Test Process by 70 percent on a 

unit basis. 2nd Am. Pet. at 6. This option would achieve annual emissions below the 25 tonsper-year applicability threshold of Subpart TT and below the 22.8 tpy limit in Condition 3 of the 

FESOP. Jd. The RACT Study concluded that the 45%/55% denatured alcohol to water QC test 

fluid constitutes RACT for Greif's Naperville facility. 2nd Am. Pet at 4-6, 14-15, Exh. A at 4-5 

to 4-6. 

In its recommendation, the Agency strongly disputed Greif's cost valuation of what 

constitutes RACT and the relevance of cases cited by Greif to demonstrate costs. However, the 

Agency stated, "RACT is not a cost issue alone." Rec. at 12. The Agency contended that the 

unique factors of a facility should guide the Board in determining RACT for a particular facility 

and that a specific dollar figure for RACT is not warranted. I d. The Agency recommended 

granting the adjusted standard with the narrow conclusion that Greif's definition ofRACT 

should be for Greif's Naperville facility only, and not for other sources which have the same 

costs. Jd. 

The Board notes that USEPA defined RACT as "the lowest emissions limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and economic feasibility." 76 Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30, 

20 II). The Board finds Greif evaluated what is "reasonably available" and has found a 

technologically feasible control technology using material substitution and reduction. Greif's 

proposal would result in the greatest emissions reduction possible using technologically feasible 

and economically reasonable controls. 

The Board finds that what makes Greif's facility unique is the capture cost of the 165-

foot long enclosure and high volume of air that would need to be treated. Greif distinguishes 

itself from RACT backstop in the Subpart TT "catch-all" rule. Based on the determination of 

RACT developed specifically for Greif's Naperville facility in its second amended petition and 

the substantially and significantly different factors described above, the Board finds the adjusted 

standard is justified. 

Impact on Public Health and the Environment 

The primary concern of the impact of YOM emissions from Greif's Naperville facility is 

whether such emissions would cause or contribute to violations of the 1-hour or 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The current 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.075 ppm, which was adopted on March 12, 

2008, replacing the previous 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of0.08 ppm. In 1997, USEPA revoked 

the !-hour ozone standard of0.12 ppm in all areas. However, USEPA indicated that some areas 

have continued obligations under the !-hour ozone standard to address "anti-backsliding". 73 

Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). The Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis areas are currently 
25 

classified as moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 6 See 40 CFR 81.314,76 

Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30, 2011 ). 

Greif stated that the adjusted standard would have "minimal impact on air quality." 2nd 

Am. Pet. at 18. Greif relied on the RACT Study and Air Quality Impact Analysis, both prepared 

by Mr. Ponder. The Analysis evaluated the difference between compliance with the 81 percent 

capture and control requirement and the 73.1 percent reduction with the proposed adjusted 

standard. Using the Scheffe method, the analysis predicted the incremental increase in ambient 

ozone from the 6. 7 tpy YOM emissions attributable to the proposed adjusted standard beyond 

those that would occur with the 81 percent requirement. The analysis noted that the Schcffepredicted ozone increment is a conservative value, exceeding actual ozone formation. Analysis 

at 1-2. The analysis estimated the ozone increment to be 1.4 7 ppb. The environmental impact 

was then assessed by adding the ozone increment to the fourth highest measured 1-hour and 8-

hour ozone concentrations of 80 ppb and 62.7 ppb for the years 2007-2009 at the Lisle air 

. monitoring station. The analysis found that the results would be less than their respective 

standards of 120 ppb for the 1-hour standard and 75 ppb for the 8-hour standard. 

Through the conditions of the adjusted standard, Greif has committed to continue 

investigating the availability of alternative QC test fluids with lower YOM content. Greif has 

also committed to incorporating such alternatives into its QC Test Process as long as there is no 

negative impact on product quality. 2nd Am. Pet. at 17. 

The Agency has determined that the proposed adjusted standard will not cause or 

contribute to violations of the NAAQS for ozone or delay the Agency's efforts to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS. Agency Answers at 2. However, the Agency stated that it did not accept 

Greifs assertion that granting of the petition will have "minimal impact on air quality." Rec. at 

7, quoting 2nd Am. Pet at 18. The Agency argued that almost "any individual source could 

make the same claim, and it is the aggregate of sources in the area that causes ozone 

nonattainment." Rec. at 7-8. In its assessment of the environmental impact, the Agency added 

the 1.4 7 ppb to the !-hour ozone design value of 70.7 ppb at Lisle for the years 2007-2009 and 

the 8-hour ozone design value of 62.7 ppb for the years 2007-2009. Agency Answers at 1. 

Based on the result, the Agency concluded that adding 1.47 ppb will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the ]-hour or 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Agency Answers at 1. 

The Board notes that although USEPA revoked the 1-hour average ozone standard of 120 

ppb in 1997, some areas have continued obligations under the 1-hour standard to address "antibacksliding." 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). In this case, USEPA is concerned with the 

consistency of the proposed adjusted standard with Section II 0 of the CAA, which addresses the 

anti-backsliding provision related to SIP revisions. Tr. at 33. Greif indicated that USEPA was 

ultimately satisfied in that regard when Condition 9 was added to the proposed adjusted standard 

language. !d. at 34. Condition 9 sets the monthly and annual YOM limits in tons per month or 

6 In a July 29, 2010 letter to USEPA, !EPA indicated that ozone air quality data for 2007-2009 

"demonstrate that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, !L-IN and St. Louis, MO-IL areas without NOx RACT in the Illinois portions of those 

areas." 75 Fed. Reg. 76332 (December. 8, 201 0). 
26 

tpy, which are identical to those in its current FESOP. Id In addition, the proposed adjusted 

standard would achieve emissions below the 22.8 tpy limit in Condition 3 of the FESOP. 2nd 

Am. Pet. at 6. 

The Board finds, based on the record, that granting the adjusted standard would not result 

in adverse impact on air quality in terms of causing or contributing to violations of the ozone 

NAAQS or delaying the State's efforts to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS in a timely 

manner. The Board also finds that the requested adjusted standard will not cause substantially or 

significantly mor adverse environmental or health effects than the effects considered by the Boad 

in adopting the rule or general applicability. 

Consistency with Federal Law 

The Board has authority under Section II 0 of the Clean Air Act to adopt regulations that 

are part of the State's plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of air quality 

standards. The adjusted standard procedure to revise a Board regulation on a site-specific basis 

is consistent with the authority granted to the states under Section II 0 of the CAA. If the Board 

adopts the proposed adjusted standard, the Agency will submit the adjusted standard as a SIP 

revision to USEPA. Rec. at 8. The Board, therefore, finds that granting Greif the requested 

relief from the rule is consistent with federal law. 

Section 27(a) of the Act 

Section 28.1 of the Act addresses adjusted standards and refers to Section 27(a) of the 

Act, which states in part: 

In promulgating regulations under this Act, the Board shall take into account the 

existing physical conditions, the character of the area involved, including the 

character of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of the 

existing air quality, or receiving body of water, as the case may be, and the 

technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the 

particular type of pollution. 415ILCS 5/27(a) (2010) (emphasis added). 

By its terms, Section 27(a) does not state a burden of proof or an evidentiary standard 

that must be met. Rather, Section 27(a) sets forth factors for the Board to "take into account." 

4151LCS 5/27(a) (2010). The Board therefore must consider the record of the adjusted standard 

proceeding in light of the Section 27(a) factors, but there is no threshold of evidence that the 

adjusted standard petitioner must meet with respect to those factors. See Krohe v. City of 

Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392,395,789 N.E.2d 1211, 1212 (2003) ("The best indication of 

legislative intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning."). 

The Board has carefully considered the information in this record in view of the Section 

27(a) factors, as required by Section 28.1(a), and finds that the adjusted standard may be granted 

consistent with those factors. See Shell Oil Co. v. IPCB, 37 Ill. App. 3d 264,274, 346 N.E.2d 

212, 221 (5th Dist. 1976) ("The requirement of section 27 is a flexible one and of necessity 

requires that a great deal of discretion be exercised by the Board."). 
27 

Conditions 

Greif had proposed language for the adjusted standard, but the Agency proposed slightly 

different language in its recommendation. At hearing, Greif agreed with the language in the 

Agency recommendation for adoption by the Board. Tr. at 16. 

In granting this adjusted standard, the Board is adopting conditions, pursuant to Section 

28.1 (a) of the Act, which are identical in wording to those suggested by the parties. 415 ILCS 

5/28.1 (a), 35 Jll. Admin. Code§ I 04.438(a). 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that Greif has provided sufficient proof and justification under Section 

28.1 (c) of the Act for an adjusted standard from Section 218.986(a) as it applies to the emissions 

ofVOM into the atmosphere from the QC Test Process of Greif's fiber drum manufacturing 

facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, DuPage County. The Board therefore 

grants Greif the requested adjusted standard, subject to conditions. The relief is effective as of 

the date of this order. 

This opinion constitutes the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

ORDER 

Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) ( 415 ILCS 5/28.1 

(201 0), the Board grants Greif Packaging, LLC (Greif), an adjusted standard from 35 lll. Adm. 

Code 218.986(a). 

I. The adjusted standard applies to the emission of volatile organic material (YOM) 

into the atmosphere from the automated Quality Control (QC) Test Process line at 

Greif's fiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in 

Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois (the Facility). The Facility manufactures 

fiber drums. Some of the fiber drums are lined with polyethylene to meet 

customer specifications, particularly for storage and transport of food-grade 

products. Lined drums must be tested to ensure the integrity of the polyethylene 

lining. That testing is performed at the QC Test Process, which consists of the 

following equipment and steps: 

a. An automated, mechanical wand is lowered into each lined drum on a 

conveyor system. The wand is calibrated so that each spray releases about 

the same amount of QC test fluid into each drum. 

b. The drums then are conveyed to the QC inspection station where the 

interior of the drum is visually inspected for pinholes. 
28 

c. The drum next is conveyed to a drying oven where most of the remaining 

QC test fluid is evaporated. After leaving the drying oven, any remaining 

QC test fluid is vacuumed from the drum and then the drum is wiped dry. 

YOM in the QC test fluid is emitted throughout the QC Test Process as 

well as in the drying oven. 

2. The Facility will reduce YOM emissions from its automated QC Test Process by 

using a test fluid composed of no more than 45 percent denatured alcohol by 

weight and no less than 55 percent water by weight. 

3. The Facility will calibrate the automated QC Test Process equipment to spray an 

average of no more than 48 grams of QC test fluid per drum with compliance to 

be measured at least once per calendar quarter by the following procedure. 

a. Weigh a plastic bag on a gram scale to determine the weight of the bag. 

b. Place the plastic bag over the spray head of the wand of the QC Test 

Process and secure it in place with a rubber band or binder clip. 

c. Cycle the QC Test Process by passing a drum through the process in the 

normal manner of operation with the plastic bag capturing the QC test 

fluid. Remove the plastic bag from the spray head of the wand of the QC 

Test Process and weigh it on the same gram scale used in step a. 

d. Calculate the weight of QC test fluid sprayed as the difference between the 

weight determined in step c and the weight determined in step a. 

e. Repeat steps a. through d. for five cycles of the QC Test Process. 

Calculate the average weight of QC test fluid sprayed per cycle and 

compare that average to the standard of an average of no more than 48 

grams of QC test fluid per drum. 

4. All records and logs required by this adjusted standard shall be retained at a 

readily accessible location at the source for at least five years from the date of 

entry and shall be made available for inspection and copying by the Illinois EPA 

or USEPA upon request. Any records retained in an electronic format (e.g., 

computer) shall be capable of being retrieved and printed on paper during normal 

source office hours so as to be able to respond to an Illinois EPA or USEPA 

request for records during the course of a source inspection. 

5. The Facility will maintain records of its QC test fluid usage that will allow the 

monthly calculation of the amount ofQC test fluid used during the month and the 

calculation of YOM emissions on a 12-month rolling total basis for comparison to 

annual YOM limits in the FESOP. To allow these calculations, the Facility will: 
29 

a. Record the volume ofQC test fluid held as inventory on the first and last 

day of each month. 

b. Maintain records of the volume ofQC test fluid received at the Facility 

during each month. 

c. The volume of QC test fluid used for a month shall equal the inventory 

volume on the first day of the month plus the volume received at the 

Facility during the month, less the volume in inventory on the last day of 

the month. 

d. The volume used during a month calculated in step c shall be multiplied 

by the YOM content of the QC test fluid (in pounds per unit of volume) to 

compute the weight (in pounds) of YOM emitted during the month. 

e. Using the emissions of YOM in pounds calculated for each month in step 

d, the Facility will compute the 12-month rolling YOM emissions for the 

QC Test Process and report those results to Facility management. 

6. Greif will continue to investigate the availability of alternative QC test fluids with 

lower YOM content. Greif will incorporate such lower YOM QC test fluids into 

its automated QC Test Process provided that the lower YOM QC test fluids allow 

visual detection of pinholes or other tears or imperfections in the drum linings 

within an acceptable period of time and does not result in any negative product 

quality impacts. 

7. The proposed adjusted standard will not affect the calculation of Greirs potential 

Emissions Reduction Market System (ERMS) baseline or its ERMS allotment if 

Greifs Naperville plant should participate in the ERMS program. 

8. Environmental staff of Greifs parent company will conduct a formal training 

session for Naperville facility personnel on the requirements of the FESOP and 

the internal procedures for tracking compliance with FESOP conditions. 

9. Emissions and operation of the QC Test Process shall not exceed the following 

limits: 

YOM Usage 

YOM Emissions 

(Tons/Mo) 

2.3 

2.3 

(TonsNr) 

22.8 

22.8 

These limits are based on the maximum material usage and the maximum YOM 

content. Compliance with the annual limit for the QC Test Process shall be 

determined from a running total of 12 months of data. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
30 

Section 41 (a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may 

be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the 

order. 4151LCS S/41(a) (2010); see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906,102.706. 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois 

Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. S.C.R. 335. The 

Board's procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final 

orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

I 01.520; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code I 01.902, I 02.700, I 02.702. 

l, John Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the 

Board adopted the above opinion and order on April 5, 2012, by a vote of 5-0. 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board