## Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011**I~** IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.- BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MAlTER OF: PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND GREIF PACKAGING, LLC FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ILLADM. CODE PART 218 SUBPARTTT 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) AS2011-00I (Adjusted Standard- Air)

NOTICE OFFILING TO: John Therriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 Charles Matoesian Division ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency I021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 PLEASE TAKENOTICE that I have today filed electronically with the Office ofthe Clerkofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, Petitioners' NOTICE OFELECTRONIC FILING,REDACTED SUBMISSION OF NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION and CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE, copies ofwhich are attached herewith and served upon you.

Date: December 8, 20II Thomas W. Dimond Susan Charles ICEMILLER LLP 200 West Madison Street Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Respectfully submitted, GREIF, INC. and GREIF PACKAGING, LLC By: /s/ Susan Charles One ofits Attomcys

1

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

BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND GREIF PACKAGING, LLC FORAN ADillSTED STANDARD FROM 351LLADM. CODEPART218 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 ofa document, portions ofwhich Greifis

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

following: I. On December 8, 2011 Greiffiled an Application for Treatment as NonDisclosable Information ("Application") with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. 2. The Application seeks to protect onlyportions ofa 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 ofthe article that is marked pursuantto subsections (c)(!) and (c)(2) ofthis Section and from which the page orportion sought to be protected from disclosure is deleted." 4. A redacted copy ofthe relevant document is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

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

Date: December 8, 20II 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 ofits Attorneys

2

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/08/2011



## NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION- AT PAGE 2 OF 3. Response ofGr.cifPaclmgingLLC to Hearing Questions for Petitioner and IEPA Served on November 8. 2011 Prepared byThomas C. Ponder, 

### Jr., PE

On November ll, 2011, the HeatingOfficer served onGreifand the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency three pre-heatingquestions onthe Final Air Quality Impact Analysis ofthe VOC Emissions from the GrcifPackagingFacility inNaperville, Jllinois, Using the Scheffe Tables (AQIA Analysis). I prepared theAQIA Analysis, and following aremy responses to those questions. QuestionA: Calculation ofVOC Emissions for the Air QualityImpact The first question essentially asked whethertheAQIA Analysishad overestimated the projected differencein VQC emissionsbetween compliance with SubpartTT and cumplianee with theproposed adjusted standard. 

### It also suggested analternateformula for calculatingthe ditletence. TheAQIA Analysis was preparedin response to aHeating Otlicer orderrequesting that Greifpreparean ambient air qualityimpactanalysis consideringthe "worst·case scenario, usingthemaximum pem1itted VOM emissions" to "quantify the difference in emissions that would occurifGreifcomplied with" the ptoposedadjusted standardratherthan SubpartTT. Developinga "worst case" analysisrequires hypothesizing aitemate operating scenarios and implicitly whatthe emissions could beundereitheralternate scenario. In some sense, the difference could bezero. Subpart TTdoes not cap annual emissions and theproposed adjusted standard caps annual emissions at the same level asthe facility's FESOP. Because.theFESOP limitwould also applyifthe facility complied with SubpartTT,undereitherscenario, the maximum annual emissions are 22.8 tpy and the difference is zero. Theweakness ofthis approach is that for anyparticularproduction level thatyields emissionsbdow22:8 tpy, there would bean actual difference in projected emissions greater than zero. Question A suggested calculatingtheemission differential usingthefollowingformula: [22.8 tpy*(l-.73l)J-[22.8 tpy*(l-.81)] 

## =1.8 tpy Where 22.8 tpy is themaximum permitted VOC emissions; .731 is theprojected emissions reductions from the adjusted standard; and .81 is theemissions reductions required bySubpartTT. TI1is approachhas some basis inthe FESOP becausetheFESOP notonly limits VOC emissions to 22.8 tpybutalso limits VOC usageto 22.8 tpy. But, the VOC usagelimitation in theFESOP was tied to the fact that the Naperville facility had no emissionscontrol devices. Ifthe facility installed an oxidizer orothertechnologyto comply withSubpartTT, then the FESOP would probablybeamended to eliminate theVOC usage limitation and simplyrely upon theVOC emission limitationto maintain thefacility's minor source status. This approach also misapplies the 73.1%reduction inVOCusage from the adjusted standardbecausethatis a perunit 

### 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. Thefirst bracket ofthe 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 ozoneincrement 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 estimatesresulting 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 AQlAAnalysis for the followingreasons. First, 

### Jassumed that a worst case analysis would involve a revision to theFESOP eliminatingthe VOCusage limitation. ln that event, compliancewith the annual emission limit of22.8tpy could still be achievedbycomplyingwith the adjusted stat\dard, which has achieved a 73.1% reduction in usageofVOC perlined drum manufactured. Thus, the maximum tons ofVOC usage that would need to be controlled ifthe facility complied with SubpartTT would be approximately 84.8 tpy [22.8 tpy/(1-.731)]. Theemissions differential can thenbe calculatedbymultiplyingthe 84.8 tpy bythe differential in the emissionsreduction percentages, asreflected in the fonnula above. That this method ofcalculating-theworstcase emissiondifferential reaches the coJTect result can beproven in another way. Byanalyzingthefacility's VOC usageperlined drum manufactured, we dctcnnincd that the averageVOCusagebefore the changes included in the adjusted standard was about -lbs/lineddrum (based on data for 2006-2007) and !halthe average VOGusage after inlplMtentingthe adjusted stanclarcl changes was aboutlbs/lined drum (based on data for 2009-2010). Usingthe averageusage afterimplementingthe adjusted standard changes, we can estimate theimplicitlimiton lined drum production us -peryear (22.8 tpy*2000 lbs/ton**~** Jbsllined drum). Forthis estimated maximum lined drum prnduetion,theemission differential can then heeasily computed.as follows: [_*..,2000]- [-*-*(1-.81)/2000]= 6.7 tpy Based on this alternative calculation, IbelievetheAQIA Analysis correctly estimated the maximum differential in emissions for a worst casescenario. Question B: Application ofthe ScheffeTables The second question raised two sub-issues. First, based on the estimated emission differential set forth in Question A, the ratio ofNMOC/NOxemissions for the facility would be 9.036, which would indicateuseofcolumn2 ofSche1feTable 2, which applies to ratios of5.2 to 20.7. The AQTA Analysis had computed a ratio of33.1i3, which indicated use ofeolumn I of ScheffeTable 2, which appliesto ratios greaterthan 20.7, Forthe reasons explainedin the 

### 2

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

responseto Question A, I believethe 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 samewhen NMOC**emis~ion~** are 50 lpy or less, as they are for the Napervillefacility. The second issueunder Question B related to the interpolation steprequired by the Schcffe approach presented in the AQIA Analysis. TheAQlA Analysis did that interpolation assuming a linearrelationship in the ozone increment value w'hen emissions arebetween 0 and 50. Question B analyzed thecurves impLicitin ScheffcTable 2, noted that the curves were not linear and proposed an alternateforn).ttla for theinterpolation. But, Question B alsorecognized that the curves implicit in ScheffeTable2 did not yield an ozoneincrement equal to 0 when the emissions differential was 0, which was a condition that obviotlsly should becoucct. While the fonnula suggested in Question B for calculating the 'intervolation contains more variables, becausethe values selected for some oftlJOse variables is zero, it produces the sameresult**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, usingthe AQIA approach, or ((6.7-0)*(J.l-0)*10/(50-0) + 0), usingthefon.nula in Question 

### B.) 

### Jagree with both fundamental points made i'n QuestionB: therelationshipbetween NMOCemissions and theratio ofNMOC!NOxemissions implicitin SchcffcTable 2 is not linear and the ozone increment should obviouslybe0 ifthe emissionsdifferential is 0. The second point essentiallyrecognizes thattheozone increments in SchcffeTable2 are not well defined bClow 50 tpy ofNMOCemissions. A linearinterpolationmayoverestimateor underestimatethe actual increment,but it seems a fair middle point to assumein the absenceof real data. Giventhat theformula for calculatingthe interpolation in Question B computes the**~ame** result asthefonnula used in the AQJA Analysis, it**doe~** not matterwhich approach is used. Question C: Impacton Illinois' Abilityto Attainthe !-Hourand 8-Hour O:wneNAAQS Fimilly Question C asked whetheranyrecalculations oftheprojected ozone increment would itnpact the conclusion 

### oftheAQlAAnalysis. Forthe reasons cxplaiiled.above, Ibelieve theAQIAAnalysis correctly computed a worstcaseemission differentialand ozone increment usingthe Scheffe method. Accordingly, the simpleanswer is no. In theAQIA Analysis, Ihad concluded that the ozoneincrement calculated there of 1.47ppb would notcause or contribute to violations ofthe NAAQS for ozoneordelay efforts to attain theNAAQS in a timely manner. If theozoneincrementis 0.396ppb, as suggested bythe analysis in QuestionsA and B, the same conclusionswouldbereached with an even greatermargin.

3

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE !, the undersigned, cetiify that on this 8th day ofDecember, 20II, l have electronically served the attached NOTICE OF FILJNG and REDACTED SUBMISSION OF NONDISCLOSABLE INFORMATJON 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 posiageprepaid, and electronic mail to the following person: CharlcsMatbcsian Division ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency I021 North GrandAvenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276



### Is! Susan Charles,__

___ _ Susan Charles

## Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, 12

## I 20

## I2

# q&JATTACHMENT

# ~~_ 

### BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATIER 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 6060I Charles Matoesian Division ofLegal 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 ofthe Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, Petitioners' NOTICE OF FILING, APPLICATION FOR TREATMENT AS NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, copies ofwhich are attached herewith and served upon you.

Date: December 8, 20II 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 ofits Attorneys

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011

BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THEMATIER OF: PETITION OF GREIF, INC. AND GREIF PACKAGING, LLC FORAN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 35 ILLADM. CODEPART218 SUBPARTIT ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) AS 2011-001 (Adjusted Standard- Air)



### APPLICATION FORTREATMENT AS NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION Petitioners Greif, Inc. and GreifPackaging, LLC ("Greif') seek a determination by the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") pursuant to 35 I.A.C. 

### § 130.406 that certain information identified onExhibit I to this application is entitled to protection from public disclosure as "non-disclosable" information. In support ofits application Greifstates the following: 1. A March 21,2011 Hearing OfficerOrder ("Order") directed Greifto provide an Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis ("AirQuality Analysis") for ozone to support its proposed adjusted standard. 2. Greifpresented the Air Quality Analysis to the Agency for review and comment. Counsel for the Agency represented to counsel for Greifthat the Agency had no commentsto the Air Quality Analysis. Greifsubsequently filed the Air Quality Analysis with the Board on November I, 20II. 3. OnNovember 8, 2011, the Hearing Officer served on Greifand the Agency three pre-hearing questions onthe Air Quality Analysis ofthe 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 

### § I01.202. 5. The specific information that Greifconsiders "confidential data" and seeks to protect from disclosure includes the average weight ofVOC sprayed into each lined drum as part ofGreifs QC test process over different time periods and calculations ofthe maximum production capacity ofGreifs facility based on those averages. The maximum production capacity information is competitive information that Greiftreats 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 Greiftreats as confidential business information. 6. Certain individuals within Greif(Khaalis Rahman, Plant Manager, and Scott Mounts, Director, Environmental, Health & Safety NA) and Greifsenvironmental consultant, Thomas C. Ponder, are familiar with the data and information sought to be protected from disclosure. 7. Greifalways 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 ofthe data and the Agency's determination according the information protection from

2

## Electronic**Filing~** 

## Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011

disclosure. Greifbelieves that the information contained in the exhibits should be sufficient to satisfy the requirements ofthe 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), Greifhas not redacted 

### the non-disclosable information in Exhibit I. As required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404(c)(4), Greifis separately filing a redacted 

### version ofExhibit I 

### with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Board. 9. Consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404, Greifis serving the Agency with a redacted 

### copy ofExhibit I. I

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

### See 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code Section 

### I01.308(a). Therefore the waiver ofstatutory deadline referenced in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 130.404(e)(5) seems to be in applicable and Greifhas submitted no such waiver.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Greifhas 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 ofits 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 ofDecember, 20II, lhave served by handdelivery the attached NOTICE OF FILING and APPLICATION FORTREATMENT AS NONDISCLOSABLE INFORMATION upon the following person: JohnTherriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 6060I and by U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, and electronic mail to the following person: Charles Matoesian Division ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency l021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

# ~~ Susan Charles

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



## NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION-ATPAGE 2 OF 3. Response ofGreifPackagingLLC to Hearing Questions for Petitioner and TEPA Served on November 8, 2011 Prepared byThomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE

On November 8, 2011, the Hearing Officer served on Greifand the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency three pre-hearing questions on the Final Air QualityImpact Analysis oftheVOCEmissions from the GreifPackagingFacility in Naperville, Jllinois, Using the ScheffeTables (AQIA Analysis). I prepared the AQIA Analysis, and following are my responses to those questions. Question A: Calculation ofVOCEmissions for the Air Quality Impact Thefirst question essentially asked whether the AQIA Analysis had overestimated the projected difference in VOC emissionsbetween compliancewith Subpart TT and compliance withthe proposed adjusted standard. It also suggested an alternate formula for calculatingthe difference. The AQIAAnalysis wasprepared in response to a HearingOfficerorderrequesting that Greifprepare an ambient air qualityimpact analysis consideringthe "worst case scenario, using themaximum permitted VOM emissions" to "quantify the difference in emissions that would occurifGreifcomplied with" theproposed adjusted standard ratherthan SubpartIT. Developing a "worst case" analysis requires hypothesizing alternate operating scenarios and implicitlywhat the emissions could beundereither alternate scenario. 

### In somesense, the difference could bezero. SubpartTTdoes not cap annual emissions and theproposed adjusted standard caps annual emissions at the same level asthefacility's FESOP. BecausetheFESOP limit would also apply ifthe facility complied with SubpartIT, under either scenario, the maximum annual emissions are 22.8 tpy and the difference is zero. The weakness ofthis approach is that for anyparticularproduction level that yields emissions below 22.8 tpy, there would be an actual difference inprojected emissions greaterthan zero. Question A suggested calculatingthe emission differential using the followingformula: [22.8 tpy*(l-.731))-[22.8 tpy*(!-.81)) = 1.8 tpy Where 22.8 tpyis the maximum pennitted VOC emissions; .731 is theprojected emissions reductions from the adjusted standard; and .81 is the emissions reductions required by SubpartIT. This approach has somebasis in the FESOPbecausethe FESOP not only limits VOC emissions to 22.8 tpybut also limits VOC usage to 22.8 tpy. But, the VOC usage limitation inthe FESOP was tied to the fact thattheNaperville facility had no emissions control devices. Ifthe facility installed an oxidizeror other technologyto complywith Subpart IT, then theFESOP would probablybe amended to eliminate the VOCusage limitation and simply relyupon theVOC emission limitation to maintain the facility's minor source status. This approach also misapplies the 73.1%reduction in VOCusage from the adjusted standard because that is aperunit I 

### EXHIB1Tl

## ElectronicFiling -Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011



## NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION reduction- not areduction that applies after VOC usage. The formula proposed in Question A also leads to odd results. The first bracket ofthe formula computes the post-adjusted standard emissions as 6.13 tpy, and the second bracket computes the hypothetical emissions from complying with SubpartTT 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 arevision to the FESOP eliminating the VOC usage limitation. 

### In that event, compliancewith the annual emission limit of22.8 tpy could still be achieved by complyingwith the adjusted standard, whichhas achieved a 73.1% reduction in usage ofVOC perlined drum manufactured. Thus, the maximum tons ofVOC usage that would need to be controlled ifthe facility complied with SubpartTTwould be approximately 84.8 tpy [22.8 tpy/(1-.731)]. The emissions differential can then becalculated bymultiplying the 84.8 tpy bythe differential in the emissions reduction percentages, as reflected in the formula above. That this method ofcalculating the worst case emission differential reaches the correct result can beproven in another way. Byanalyzing the facility's VOC usageperlined drum manufactured, we determined that the average VOCusagebefore the changes included in the adjusted standard was about -lbs/lineddrum (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 2009-2010). Using the average usage afterimplementingthe adjusted standard changes, we can estimate the implicit limit on lined drum production as -peryear (22.8 tpy*2000 lbs/ton**~** lbsllined drum). Forthis 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 alternativecalculation, Ibelievethe AQIA Analysis correctlyestimated the maximum differential in emissions for a worst case scenario. Question B: Application ofthe Scheffe Tables The second question raised two sub-issues. First, based on the estimated emission differential set forth in Question A, theratio ofNMOC/NOx emissions for the facility wouldbe 9.036, which would indicate use ofcolumn 2 ofScheffeTable 2, which applies to ratios of5.2 to 20.7. The AQIA Analysishadcomputed a ratio of33.63, wlllch indicated use ofcolumn I of ScheffeTable2, which applies to ratios greaterthan 20.7. Forthe 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 differencebecause the values in columns I and 2 are the same when NMOC emissions are 50 tpy orless, as they are for the Naperville facility. The second issueunder QuestionB related to the interpolation step required by the Scheffe approach presented in the AQIA Analysis. The AQIA Analysis did that interpolation assuming a linearrelationship in the ozone increment valuewhen emissions are between 0 and 50. Question B analyzed the curves implicit in ScheffeTable2, 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 ozoneincrement equal to 0 when the emissions differential was 0, which was a condition that obviously should becorrect. While the formula suggested in QuestionB for calculating the .interpolationcontains morevariables, because the values selected for some ofthosevariables is zero, it produces the sameresult as the interpolation method used in the AQIA Analysis. Forexample, for the emission differential of 6.7 tpypresented in the AQIAAnalysis and confirmed above, both formulas result in an ozone increment of1.47 ppb [1.1 pphm*l0 ppb/pphm*6.7 tpy/50 tpy, using theAQIA approach, or ((6.7-0)*(1.1-0)*10/(50-0) 

### +0), usingtheformula in Question B.] I agreewith both fundamental points made in Question B: the relationshipbetween NMOC emissions and theratio ofNMOC/NOx emissionsimplicit in ScheffeTable 2 is not linear and the ozoneincrement should obviously be0 ifthe emissions differential is 0. The second point essentially recognizes that the ozone increments in ScheffeTable 2 arenot well definedbelow 50tpy ofNMOC emissions. A linearinterpolation may overestimate or underestimate the actual increment,but it seems a fair middlepoint to assumein the absenceof real data. Given that the formula for calculatingthe interpolation in QuestionB computes the sameresult as theformula used in theAQIA Analysis, it does not matter which approach is used. Question C: Impact on Illinois' Ability to Attain the !-Hourand 8-HourOzoneNAAQS Finally Question C asked whether anyrecalculations oftheprojected ozone increment would impact the conclusion ofthe AQIA Analysis. Forthe reasons explained above, I believe theAQIA Analysis correctly computed a worstcase emission differential and ozone increment usingthe Scheffemethod. Accordingly, the simple answer is no. In theAQIA Analysis, I had concluded that theozoneincrement calculated there of1.47 ppb would not causeorcontribute to violations ofthe NAAQS for ozoneor delay efforts to attain the NAAQS in a timely manner. If the ozone increment is 0.396ppb, as suggested bythe analysis in Questions A and B,the same conclusions would bereached with an even greatermargin.

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 I021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 '2:00 W. MADISON ST. SumJSOO 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 ofIncompleteness ("NOI") ofClaim to be Exempt from Public Disclosure 043467AAA-DuPage Naperville- GriefPackaingLLC Dear Michael: 

### I have reviewed your letter dated April 18, 2011 statingthat my claim on behalfofGreif Packaging LLC and Greif, Inc. (f/k/a GreifBros. Corp) (collectively, "Greif') for a part ofa 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 responseto your April 18 letter is due 10 business days following ourreceipt of**t~_A-R.ril_** 18 letter even though the last paragraph ofthe letter indicates the confidentiality claim will be denied ifno response is submitted within 10 business days ofthe date ofthat letter. Your letter was not received until April21, but we are submitting our response today to avoid any issue with the timeliness ofourresponse. 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 apublic recordpreviously granted exemptstatus by the Agency, thefollowing information: 

### i) Measures taken by the submiller to prevent disclosure of the public record; ii) The rights of privacy, 

## ifany, that might be an unwarranted invasion of 

### EXHIBIT2

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

## ElectronicF'iling- Received, Clerk's Office, 12/20/2011 Mr. Michael E. Dura Environmental Protection Agency May 2, 2011 Page2 personalprivacy by disclosure of thepublic record; iii) The competitive value, 

## if any, of thepublic record to the submitter; and iv) Any other information that will support the claimfor exemption from disclosure; From the NOI, it is not clear whythe Agency found the asserted claim deficient under Section 1828.40I(b)(2)(8). As indicated in my March 29 letter, Greifmaintains this information and does not disclose it outside the company. This should satisfy subsection (i). Arid, we also explained that the information would be valuableto Greif's competitors becausethey could use it to perform analyses ofthe market and better inform their decisions asto 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 ofpersonal 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 addressingevery subpart of 1828.401(b)(2)(B). Indeed, that would seem impossible, because a claimantasserting a medical privacy claim would likely have no informationto submit on subpart (iii) related to competitive value ofthe information. While Greifbelieves that the March 29 letter adequately satisfied the requirements of Section 1828.40l(b)(2)(B), we areproviding the additional information below in support ofour claim for confidential business information protection for the record at issue. As to subpart (i), the information inthe 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 Greifemployees are granted access to these computer systems. For example, many of the hourly compensated employees do not have access. The informationinthe 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 Napervillefacility, inform employees that maintainingthe confidentiality ofcertain information is crucial to the interests and success ofGreifandthat failure to maintain the confidentiality ofthat information may result in disciplinary sanctions, including possibly termination. Amongthe categories ofinformation deemed confidential are computer processes and financial information, both ofwhich encompassthe 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 ofcompany

### .

# . I 

## ElectronicPiling- 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 inapplicableto Greifs claim, we would observe that every company hasthe 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 ofsuch information. As to subpart (iii), we reiterate that Greifs competitors would find the annual production data useful for analyzing the production capabilities ofthe Naperville facility in the upper Midwest region. That information could be useful to Greifs competitors in making market entry,pricing or otherbusiness decisions that could adversely impact theprofitability ofthe Naperville plant. Taken together, the information submitted above should be sufficientto satisfy the requirements ofSection 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 aparty in aproceeding before the Boardor a court in which the iriformation is relevant to the issues, the title of theproceeding, docket number, and

## if applicable, identification of the court. My March 29, 2011 letter referenced thatthe document was submitted in connection with the proceeding in the matter of Petition of Greif Packaging for anAdjustedStandard, ASll-1,which is aproceedingbeforethe Illinois Pollution Control Board.("Board") and we thoughtthis satisfied this requirement. To avoid any ambiguity, the full name ofthat matter is In the Matter ofPetition of GreifInc. andGreif PackagingLLC for an AdjustedStandard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart TT, ASll-1,which is pending beforethe Board and in which the Greifentities 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 apublic record orportions thereofclaimed exemptfrom disclosures asfollows: 2) Where less than the entirepublic record is claimedto be exemptfrompublic disclosure: A) Mark thepublic recordwith the words Public Record ClaimedExempt-inPart in red ink on theface or front of thepublic record. if submittedin electronic format, thepublic recordmust clearly be marked in boldat the top or front of thepublic recordwith the words Public Record Claimed Exempt-in-Part; B) Indicate on theface or beginning of thepublic records whichportion of

## Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 12!20/2011 Mr. Michael E. Dura Environmental Protection Agency May 2, 2011 Page 4

thepublic record is claimedto be exempt from disclosure; 

## * • • D) Furnish theAgencywith a secondcopy ofthepublic record that is marked in accordance with (A) and(B) of this subsection and from which the portion of the public record that is claimedto be exemptfrom 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). Norhave we been able to identify any deficiency. Therecord in question was submitted electronically by email so that the "red ink" requirement ofsubpart (A) does not apply. In accordance with subpart (A), the record was marked in bold in the upper right hand corner with thewords Public Record Claimed Exempt- in Part. The record also identifiesby yellow shading which portion ofthe 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 ofthe record that is also marked in bold withthe words Public Record Claimed Exempt- in Part, that indicates whatpmiion is considered exempt and that omits the information claimed as exempt. This should satisfy subpart (D). After you review the documents submitted again, ifit 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 ofour confidential business information claim for a portion of this record to be exempt from disclosure. 

### Ifyou have any further questions or believe our claim is still deficient in some way, please contactme. Sincerely,



## ----/:**--~~:-.- c::--:·~-**  

## .........._..,

/. t'UhN'-;}--- 

### /<)

## :~-s~~d:i-'""''---------) Thomas W. Dimond TWD/vwI" .-·

## .~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, 100Wesl Randolph, Suile 11-300, Chicago, IL 60601 • (312) 814·6026 PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR 

### June I, 2011 Ice MillerLLP Attn: Mr. 

### Thomas W. Dimond 200 WestMadison 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 043467AAA--DuPage Naperville--GreifBros Corp Compliance DearMr. Dimond, The Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency (Illinois EPA) has reviewed yourResponse to the Notice ofIncompleteness ofClaimto be Exempt from Public Disclosure, dated May 2, 2011, and received onMay 4, 2011, forthe 

### QC TestProcessAnalysis, dated March 29, 2011. This letterwill serve as notice pursuant to 2 Ill. Adm. Code Section 1828.404. The 

### QC Test Process Analysis, dated March 29,2011, is exempt in-partpursuantto the Illinois Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.) The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has determined the 

### QC TestProcess Analysis, dated March 29,2011, is exempt in-partfrom public disclosure pursuant to 2Ill Adm Sections 1828.202.(a)(l)(H)/(l) and 

### 5ILCS 140/7(l)(i)/(k). Ifyou have any questions, comments orconcerns, please contactme atthe above phone number or email address. Sincerely, ,

# ?l(td~f~ Michael E. Dura Legal Investigator Records ManagementUnit Planning and Reporting Section Bureau ofLand · MD:med.

cc: Bureau ofAirFile Charles Matoesian, DLC

Rockford • 4302 N. Mail\**St~** Rockford, ll61103 •IBIS} 987·7760**Elgir~** • 595 S. Sidle, Elgin, It 60123 • (647) 608-3131 Bureau ofland -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, It61B20 • (217) 278-5600 Marion • 2309W. Main SL, Suite 116, Marion,ll62959 • (618) 993-7200IN THEMATIER OF : ll..LINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD January 10,2012 ) ) ) AS 11-1 

## RSCEIVEDJ7 ClllPAIUal\CJfflRitj;l:NO.

_



## JAN 10 2012 STATE OF**~WNOIS** 

## Pollution Control

### Soard

PETITION OFGREIF PACKAGING, LLC., FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARDFROM 35 

### ILL. ADM. CODE 218 SUBPART

### IT ) (AdjustedStandard

- Air)

# ~ 

# 0**~~~~r~~,~ fr~** **~,,** HEARING OFFICER ORDER**RHUR~~**

# sn On December20, 2011, a hearing in this matterwas held at the James R. Thompson Center, 100 WestRandolph St., Chicago, ll... Room 11-512. Attorneys ThomasW. Dimond and Susan Charles appeared and participated on behalfofthe petitioner. Attorney Charles E. Matoesian appeared andparticipatedon behalfofthe IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency (Agency). Preliminary Matters On November 8, 2011, a Hearing Officer Order was issuedthatdirected the petitionerto address pre-hearing questions that were attached to the order. On December 8, 2011, the petitionerfiled a Redacted Submission ofNon-Disclosable Information and on December20, 2011, the petitionerfiled an Application forTreatment as Non-Disclosable Information in accordancewith the Il,linois Pollution Control Board'sProcedural Rules, Section 130, Subpart D. Petitioner's aforementioned filings were taken with thecase. Duringthe hearing, the Agencywas asked by the Board'sEnvironmental Scientist Alisa Liu, to respond to questions directed to the Agency's witness, YoginderMahajan. TheAgency electedto submit its answers in writing on orbefore January 13, 2012. Exhibits Petitioneroffered three exhibits at the hearing. An exhibit list itemizingtheoffered exhibits and summarizingtheir status is attachedto this order. Briefing Schedule At the hearing, a post hearing briefing schedule was discussed and agreedto. The petitioner'spost-hearing briefis due to be filed on orbefore January 26, 2012. TheAgency's post-hearing briefis due to be filed on orbefore February 9, 2012. Petitioner'sreply, ifany, is due to befiled on orbeforeFebruary 16, 2012. Public commentmustbefiled on orbefore January 17,2012. The Agency's written responses to the oral questions posed by Ms. Liu at hearing are due to befiled on orbefore January 13, 2012.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BradleyP. Halloran Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 100 West Randolph Chicago, Illinois 60601 312.814.89173 AS 11-1 December 20, 2011 Hearing ExhibitList Exhibit Description Status Petitioner'sExhibit 1 Reasonably Available Control Technology Admitted Study, dated March 2011 Petitioner'sExhibit 2 Final Air QualityImpact Analyses, dated Admitted August 11,2011 Petitioner'sExhibit 3 Non-Disclosable Information (Redacted)

- Admitted Response ofpetitionerto Hearing questions served on November 8, 20114

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE Itis hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on January 10, 2012, to each ofthe persons on the servicelist below. It is herebycertified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand deliveredto the following on January 10, 2012: John Therriault Illinois Pollution Control Board JamesR. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

# ~**~.\~~----** \ BradleyP. Halloran Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James 

### R. Thompson Center 100 

### W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312.814-8917

SERVICELIST

AS 2011-001 Division ofLegal Counsel IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL62794-9276

AS 2011-001 Thomas W. Dimond IceMillerLLP 200W. Madison Suite 3500 Chicago, IL60606 AS 2011-001 Susan Charles Ice MillerLLP 200W. Madison Suite 3500 Chicago, IL60606

## Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012IEPA ATTACHMENT NO 

# l4 

# ·- BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION OF GREIF PACKAGING,LLC FORAN 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 I00 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 Susan Charles Tom Dimond lee MillerLLP 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 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601-3218

PLEASE TAKENOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the ILLINOIS EPA ANSWERS TO ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD QUESTIONS AT HEARING ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

DATED: January 12,2012 I021 North Grand Avenue 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 ofLegal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ONRECYCLED PAPER

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012

BEFORETHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD

IN THEMATTEROF: PETITION OF GREIFPACKAGING, LLC FORAN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM 351LLADM. CODE PART218 SUBPARTTT ) ) ) ) ) AS 11-01 Air

ILLINOIS EPAANSWERS 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 ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") at the December 20,2011, hearing.

Question 1: Page 31

- 32 ofthetranscript: Previously in Adjusted standard AS 09-4 for a company called Royal Fiberglass, the agency stated that an increase oftwo parts perbillion 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 ofI.47 parts per billion is potentially significant? Response: UnitedStates EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhas notdefineda level of significance for ozone. However, the Agencyreviewedthe impact of an incrementof 1.47parts perbillion on the current airquality in the area. For 2007-2009, the one- hourdesign value at Lisle, the closestmonitoringsite to thefacility, is 70.7partsperbillion. TheAgencybelieves that an increase of 1.47partsperbillion to the design value will not cause the violation of 120 partsperbillion one-hourNationalAmbientAir Quality Standards for ozone. Also, theAgency believes thatadding 1.47partsperbillion to the designvalue of62.7partsper billion for 8-hour ozone standard(2007-2009) at Lisle monitoringsite willnot cause or contribute to a violation of the 8-hourozoneNationalAmbientAir QualityStandards of75partsperbillion.

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012

Question 2: Page 32 ofthe transcript: And the second question is, does the Agency believe the granting ofthis proposed adjusted standard will cause or contribute to the violations ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone or delay efforts to attain theNAAQS in a timely manner? Response: TheAgencybelieves thatgrantingof thisproposedadjustedstandardwillnot cause or contribute to violations of the NationalAmbientAir Quality Standardsfor ozone ordelay the Agency's efforts to attain ormaintain theNationalAmbientAir QualityStandardsfor ozone in a timelymanner.

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 1/12/2012

STATE OFILLINOIS COUNTY OF SANGAMON ) ) ) 

## ss

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 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 I00 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 I021 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 I00 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601-3218

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

### Is/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal 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 ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 .PLEASE TAKENOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe 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 ofwhich 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 ofits Attorneys

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, certify that on this 26th day ofJanuary, 2012, Ihave 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 6060I and by electronic and U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to the following person: Charles Matoesian Division ofLegal 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 THEMATTER 

### 0F: 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 briefto the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") in support oftheirSecond Amended Petition for an Adjusted Standard ("Petition"). Greifseeks an adjusted standard from 35111. Adm. Code§ 218.986(a) as it applies to the emissions ofvolatile 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 Greifoperates 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 ofthe fiber drums require the addition ofa polyethylene drum liner to meet customer specifications,

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

particularly for storage and transport offood-grade products. !d.; Exhibit I, Section 2.0. 1 Greif conducts quality control ("QC") testing ofthe liners ofthese drums by spraying a QC test fluid (a denatured alcohol product, which is a YOM) into the interior ofthe drums at the QC spray station. Exhibit I, Section 2.0. Greifuses an automated system to spray the interior ofthe 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 ofQC test fluid into each drum. The drums then travel approximately 45 feet to the QC inspection station where Greifvisually inspects the interior forpinholes. 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 ofYOM from the QC Test Process are subject to Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit No. 9707044 ("FESOP"). Condition 3 ofthe 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 emissionsfrom 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 ofthe 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, SubpartTT, Section 218.986(a) because Subpart TT is a "once in- always in" regulation. 

### See Recommendation ofIIlinois Environmental Protection Agency at 4 (October II, 20II) ("Recommendation").

Exhibit I is the Reasonably Available Control Technology Study prepared by Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., P.E. for Greifand was admitted into evidence at the hearing. Transcript ofDecember 20, 20 II Hearing at 18-21 (hereafter "Hearing Transcript").

2

## ElectronicFiling- 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 ofYOM emissions within certain areas ofIllinois. See In the Matter of ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology for Major Sources £milling Volatile OrganicMaterials 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 ofan emission unit subject to !Subpart TT) shall comply with the requirements ofsubsection (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

. Greifconducted a RACT Study to evaluate whether various emission control options for the QC Test Process satisfy RACT control requirements in Section 218.986(a). Greifsubmitted the RACT Study to the Agency on September 16, 2010 and subsequently submitted a revised RACT Study in March 2011 ("RACT Study"). Petition at4;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 ofYOM emissions as required under Section 218.986(a), but only at a cost per ton of YOM emissions controlled ofbetween $1 1,667

- $17,672. !d. These costs exceed what the Board typically has considered reasonable in adopting RACTregulations. See infra at 9-13. Greifsubmitted its initial Petition in January 201 I. Afterdiscussions with the Agency, Greiffiled 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 Greifand the Agency, as well as comments submitted by U.S. EPA to the Agency. After the filing ofthe Second Amended Petition in August, Greifcontinued 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 ofthe adjusted standard included in the Second Amended Petition. The Agency filed its Recommendation on Greifs Petition on October 1I, 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, Greifsupports 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 ofYOM into the atmosphere from the automated QC Test Process line at Greifsfiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois (the Facility). TheFacility manufactures fiber drums. Some ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofQC test fluid into each drum. b. The drums then are conveyed to the QC inspection station where the interiorofthe drum is visually inspected for pinholes.

c. The drum next is conveyed to a drying oven where most ofthe 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 ofno more than 45 percent denatured alcohol by weight and no less than 55 percent water by weight. 3. TheFacility will calibrate the automated QC Test Process equipment to spray an average ofno more than 48 grams ofQC 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 ofthe bag. b. Place the plastic bag over the spray head ofthe wand ofthe 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 ofoperation with the plastic bag capturing the QC test fluid. Remove the plastic bag from the spray head ofthe wand ofthe QC Test Process and weigh it on the same gram scale used in step a. d. Calculatethe weight ofQC test fluid sprayed as the difference between the weight determined in stepc and the weight determined in step a.

e. Repeat steps a. through d. for five cycles ofthe QC Test Process. Calculate the average weight ofQC test fluid sprayed per cycle and compare that average to the standard ofan average ofno more than 48 grams ofQC test fluid perdrum. 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 ofentry and shall be made available for inspection and copying by the Illinois EPA orUSEPA upon request. Any records retained in an electronic format (e.g., computer) shall be capable ofbeing retrieved and printed on paper duringnormal source office hours so as to be able to respond to an Illinois EPA or USEPA request for records during the course ofa source inspection. 5. The Facility will maintain records ofits QC test fluid usage that will allow the monthly calculation ofthe 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 ofQC test fluid held as inventory on the first and last day ofeach month. b. Maintain records ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe QC test fluid (in pounds per unit ofvolume) to compute the weight (in pounds) ofYOM emitted during the month.



### 5

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

e. Using the emissions ofYOM 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. Greifwill continue to investigate the availability ofalternative QC test fluids with lower YOM content. Greifwill 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 ofGreif's potential Emissions Reduction Market System ("ERMS") baseline or its ERMS allotment ifGreif's Naperville plant should participate in the ERMS program. 8. Environmental staffofGreif's parent company will conduct a formal training session for Naperville facility personnel on the requirements ofthe FESOP and the internal procedures for tracking compliance with FESOP conditions. 9. Emissions and operation ofthe QCTest 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 ofdata.

II. GREIF'S PETITION SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE BURDEN OF PROOF TO OBTAIN AN ADJUSTED STANDARD. Where, as here, the regulation ofgeneral applicability does not specify a level of justification required for a petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, Section 28.1 (c) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 4151LCS 5/28.l(c), authorizes the Board to grant an adjusted standard upon adequate proofofthe 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 ofthose factorsjustifies 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 ofgeneral 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 Greifare 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 BoardDidNot Consider Factors Involving lhe Drum Manl!facturing Business inAdoptingSubpar/ TT. 

### Subpart TT ofPart 218 is essentially a "catch-all" RACT regulation applicable to YOM

sources that are not governed by other subparts ofPart 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 ofSubpart 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 ofPart 218 would be "substantially and significantly different." See FordMotor Company 

### (2000), AS 00-6, Slip. Op. at 5 (granting adjusted standard from Subpart TT). In FordMo10r 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 ofPart 218 and, in adopting Subpart TT, the Board did not consider factors relating to any specific industry or

7

## ElectronicFiling- 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. GreifsAbility to Manage VOMEmissions Through Dilurion of its QC Test Fluid andLimitations on the Amount ofQC Tesl Fluid Used Constitute Substantially andSignificantlyDifferent Factors. 

### Even ifthe Board had considered factors impacting the capture and control ofYOM 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 ofthe 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 ofeffective 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 ofQC 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 ofemission 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 andSignificantly Different.from Other ManufacturingActivities Consideredby 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 ofthe testing fluid and the need for Greifto 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 ofthe 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 AchievingRACTControl Standard Exceedthose Consideredby Board in SellingRACTStandard. As shown in Greifs RACT Study, feasible technologies to achieve the 81 percent combined capture and control objective ofSection 218.986(a) would requirecosts 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 AdjustedStandard 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 ofYOM



### 9

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

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

re.· Petition of Louis Berkman, AS 97-5 (Dec. 4, 1997) a!]'dsub 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 EnvironmenlalProJectionAgency for an AdjustedSrandard from 3 5 lAC 218.980, AS 91-8 (Sept. 21, 1995) (Board found $40,000 per ton ofYOM reduced to be economicaliy unreasonable). In addition, while the Agency has stated that costs in excess ofany particulardollar amount are notperse economically unreasonable, the Agency does agree that the "alternative compliance methods and add-on options investigated by Greifhave costs which are not RACT." See Recommendation at 11-12. Greifinvestigated multiple compliance alternatives capable ofachieving an 81 percent capture and control ofYOM 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 ofthe QC test fluid with water is the only technically feasible and economically reasonable alternative.

a. Capture Systems Due to the physical set-up ofGreifs QCtest process, an effective capture system would require a tunnel enclosure covering the 165 foot conveyersystem 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 ofthe drum paint

oven to ensure adequate capture ofemissions. !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 ofcapture 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 ofthe 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 ofthese potential control systems are economically umcasonable.

l. RecuperativeThermal Incinerators 

### A recuperative thermal incinerator requires a large amount ofnatural 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 ofthe insulation which requires ongoing maintenance costs. 

### Id. 

### at Section I.0. The RAC'T' Study concluded that total capital costs ofthe 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 oftwo or more beds ofactivated 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofYOM 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 ofthe 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 ofthe water diluted test fluid) is $1,800,000 and annualized capital and operating costs arc $11,667 per ton ofYOM controlled. 

### See idatTable 4-1.

c. Material Substitution Options

1. QC Test Fluid- Dilution with Acetone Greifconsidered dilution ofthe QCtest fluid with acetone (a non-YOM material) as a possible alternative. However, dilution ofthe testing fluid with acetone can cause the gasket material sealing the bottom ofthe 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 Greifevaluated the operational impact ofdiluting the QC test fluid with varying amounts ofwater to reduce YOM emissions. Exhibit I, Section 3.3.1. Greifexperimented with five different ratios ofwater to denatured alcohol to identify the composition able to reduce YOM emissions to the greatest extent possible while maintainingthe ability to visually detect pinholes

or other tears or imperfections in the drum linings. Based on these testruns, Greifdetermined 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. Greifthen conducted additional testing to determine whether the amount ofQC test fluid applied to each drum could be reduced.

12

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012

Based on this testing, Greifdetermined 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 ofRACTSludy 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 ofthese options could achieve the 81 percent capture and control objectives ofSubpart IT, the cost/ton ofVOM controlled range from $11,667 to $17,672. Greifand 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 ofQC 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 ofThese Factors Justifies**~.!L~djusted** Standard. The intent ofthe 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 FordMolor Company (ChicagoAssemblyPlant)for anAcljusted Slandardfrom 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986, AS 02-3, Slip. Op. at 4 (November21, 2002). Greif hasdemonstrated 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 ofthe 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- 2010). In addition, construction and operation ofcontrol equipment capable ofachieving 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 ofthe QC Test fluid. See 

### Exhibit I at Section 3.2.1. Forexample, use ofrecuperative thermal incinerators requires large amounts ofnatural gas and generates NOx and CO emissions and small quantities ofVOM 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, suchas 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 ofcontrol technologies created offsetting emissions ofNOx and VOM); In the Matter of Joint Petition of Quantum Chemical Corporation, US! Division (and the 11/inois Environmental ProtectionAgency)foranAdjusted Standard from Parts of35 1/1. Adm. Code 218.966 and2/8.986. 

### AS 92-14, Slip. Op. at 9 (Board

2 Greifunderstands 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 ofsome significance because the Board certainly did not consider sources with uncontrolled emissions less than the threshold being subject to Subpart 1T. 

### 14

### ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012

granted adjusted standard from Subpart TT where use ofcontrol technology would emit NOx which would partially offset the benefits ofYOM 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 ofcarbon beds. Further, ketones found in the denatured alcohol present an inherent safety risk offires 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 ofnatural 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 ofthe costs ofthe various control technologies that are available to address YOM emissions from Greif's Naperville facility demonstrate that dilution ofthe QC test fluid with waterconstitutes RACT. In addition, dilution ofthe QC test fluid with water provides meaningful reductions in YOM emissions without the negative environmental, health and safety impacts associated with operation ofcapture and control systems. The existence ofthese factors justifythe 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, ifany, 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/air/air-guali ty-report/2009/air-guality-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 TTfor 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% ofstate-wide point source emissions and only about 0.056% ofMetropolitan 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 FordMo10r Company (2002), 

### AS 02-3, Slip. Op. at 4 (50 tpy reduction ofYOM 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 ofQC test fluid used per drum is producingjust

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 ofpotential environmental impact, at the request ofthe 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 SubpartTT, the Scheffe method predicted a conservative ozone increment estimate of 1.47ppb ofozone. 

### !d. at 2. That incrementwhen added to the monitored

ozone levels at the nearest Illinois monitoring station in Lisle would not predict exceedances of either ofthe national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for ozone. 

### !d. at 2-3 (addressing the !-hourozone NAAQS and the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS). Further, the Agency has not identified any material concerns for air quality orhealth effects resulting from a grant ofthe proposed adjusted standard. The Agency's Recommendation acknowledges that the "technical factors (associated with operation ofGreir QC test process] and the emission reductions Greifhas 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 ofthis proposed adjusted standard will cause or contribute to the violations ofthe NAAQS for ozone or delay efforts to attain the ozone NAAQS in a timely manner. 

### See HearingTranscript 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

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012

the impact ofan 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 ofthe 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, 2012). The Agency also stated its view that granting ofthis proposed adjusted standard will not cause or contribute to violations ofthe 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 ofthe federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

### §7410, grants individual states the authority to promulgate a plan for implementation, maintenance and enforcement ofair quality standards, subject to approval by U.S. EPA. Based on the RACT Study, the proposed adjusted standard constitutes RACT for the Greiffacility, 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. Greifwill work with the Agency to submit a SIP revisionto 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 ifthe adjusted standard is adopted by the Board. Recommendation at 8. Further, the Agency has represented to Greifthat 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

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 01/26/2012

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Greifhas demonstrated that the proposed adjusted standard satisfies the requirements ofSection 28.1 (c) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, that granting ofthe 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

19ILLINOIS 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 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY. OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (byJ.A. Burke): On January 24,2011, GreifPackaging, LLC (Greif) filed a petition for an adjusted standard (Petition) from 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) as it app.lies to emissions ofvolatile organic material (VOM) at Greifs fiber drum manufacturingfacility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, Du Page County. VOM in excess ofBoard standards is emitted by a denatured alcohol product Greifuses as a test fluid in its quality control (QC) process to detectthe existence ofpinhole leaks in polyethylene liners for certain drums. Such drum liners are used to meetcustomers' drum specifications, particularly for drums used for storage and transport offood-grade products. On October 11,2011,the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendationthattheBoard grant Greifspetition. The Board held apublic hearing in Naperville onDecember 20,2011, following which the parties briefedthe issues raised. Based on the record before it, the Board finds that Greifhas provided sufficient justification for an adjusted standard under Section 28.1 ofthe Env.ironmental Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2010), and the Board grants Greifan adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) subjectto conditions outlined in this order. 

### PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 24,2011, Greiffiled a petition withthe 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 10,201I, Greiffiled a "ProofofPetitionNotice Requirements" indicating that notice ofthepetition waspublished in theNaperville 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 orderdirecting Greifto address prehearing questions. On May 31, 2011, Greiffiled a FirstAmended Petition followed by a "ProofofPetition Notice Requirements" on June 17,2011, indicating that notice ofthe first amended petition was published in theNaperville Sun on June I0, 2011. On August I0, 2011, Greiffiled a Second Amended Petition (2nd Am. Pet.) followed by a "ProofofPetition Notice Requirements" on August 30, 2011, indicating that notice ofthe petition was published in theNaperville Sun on August 12, 20II. The Agency filed motions for extensions oftime 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 ofthe Agency's motions on March I0, 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, Greifsubmitted its "Air Quality Impact Analysis ofthe [Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)) Emissions from the GreifPackaging Facility in Naperville, Illinois Using the Scheffe Tables." OnNovember 8, 20II,the hearing officer directed Greifto address additional prehearing questions based on the second amended petition, the airquality impact analysis, the Agency'srecommendation, and responses to the earlierprehearing questions. On December 8, 2011, Greiffiled a "Redacted Submission ofNon-Disclosable Information" for the "Response ofGreifPackaging LLC to Hearing Questions for Petitioner and (Agency) Served on November 8, 201 I" (Response to Hearing Questions) followed by an "Application for TreatmentasNon-Disclosable Information" (Application) on December20, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the hearing officer conducted a hearing in this matter at the James R. Thompson Center located at I00 West Randolph Street in Chicago, Cook County. The Transcript ofthe hearing will be cited as "Tr. at_." Two witnesses testified athearing on behalfofGreif: (I)Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE, consulting engineer, and (2) Khaalis Rahman, plant manager at Greifs facility in Naperville. Atthe hearing, Greifalso 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 staffat hearing, clarifying the Agency'srecommendation (Agency Answers). On January 26,2012, Greiffiled a post-hearing brief(Pet. Br.).

### 3

PRELIMINARY MATTERREGARDING NON-DISCLOSABLE INFORMATION Greif's Application for Treatment as Non-Disclosable Information On December 20, 20II, Greiffiled an application for treatment as non-disclosable information with the Board. Specifically, Greifrequested thatthe Board grant, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 130.406, certain information identified in Exhibit I ofthe application to protection from public disclosure. In support ofits position, Greifstates that a thorough response to pre-hearing questions submitted by the Board hearing officer required information that Greifbelieves 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 ofVOC sprayed into each lined drum as part ofGreif's QC test process over different time periods and calculations ofthe maximum production capacity ofGreif's facility based on those averages. Jd. Greifstatesthat this information as well as subsequent actual production data is confidential business information. !d. Greifnotes that it has always maintained its annual production data as confidential business information and thatthe averages referred to above were protected bythe Agency from disclosure under its regulations implementing the lllinoisFreedom oflnformation Act. Jd. Greif attached the Agency determination ofsame as an exhibitto its application. Board Discussion on Application The Illinois General Assembly has made provisions in Sections 7 and 7.1 ofthe Actto protect from public disclosure trade secrets and other non-disclosable information submitted to the State agencies. The Act also provides thatcertain submissions are not to be kept confidential, balancing the public's right to know with other policy interests, such as protecting secretprocesses 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 petitionerto claim that all orpartofa filing constitutes non-disclosable information. The Board has reviewed the claimed information in issuingtoday's order. The Board has received no formal requests for public disclosure ofthe claimed confidential business information. Therefore, Greif's claimed information will continue to remain protected from public disclosure in accordance with 35lll.Adm. Code 130.SubpartD. In 

### rePetition ofPeoria Disposal Company, AS 8-10, slip op. at 88 (Jan. 8, 2009). FACTUAL BACKGROUND TheFacility Greifoperates 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 ofthe 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 !-hourand 8-hour standards under40 CFR 81.314. !d. at 8,16.4

Manufacturing offiber drums at the Naperville facility began in 1988, and Greifcurrently 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. Id. The drum manufacturing process involves cuttingthe fiber material, forming it into a cylinder, and attaching a top and bottom to the cylinder. 

### I d. Greifadds a polyethylene drum linerto some drums to meet customer specifications, particularly for storage and transport offood-grade products. Id. For drums manufactured with drum liners, Greiftests the liners for QC purposes to identify ifpinholes are present. 2nd Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. A at 2-1, Tr. at 8-9. Greifdescribed 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 ofthe QC test fluid into each drum. ld. When the wand is retracted, the conveyorbelt moves the drum 45 feet to the QC inspection station. 

### Id. Here the interior is visually inspected for pinholes, which ifpresent, appear as a brown spot. ld. Next the drum is conveyed 120 feet to a drying oven where most ofthe remainingtest fluid evaporates. 

### !d. Any additional testfluid is vacuumed and wiped dry. 

### !d. YOM Emissions Greifpointed out that, because QC test fluid evaporates slowly, YOM emissions occur throughout the QC test process as well as in thepaint drying oven. 2nd Am. Pet. at 1-2, 9, Exh. A at 1-I, Tr. at II. Greifstated that it "tracks its YOM emissions on a monthly basis by calculating the mass ofYOMs used and assumingthat all usage is emittedto the atmosphere." 2nd Am. Pet. at 2. Greifrecords the volume ofdenatured alcohol held in inventory on the first dayofthe month plus the volumepurchased withinthe month. 

### !d. Greifthen subtractsthe inventory remaining on the last day ofthemonth to calculatethevolume used. 

### Jd. Thevolume is then multiplied by the YOM content (in poundsper gallon) to determinethe pounds ofYOM emitted during the month. 

### !d. Other YOM emission sources at Greif'sNaperville facility include a caulk applicator, paint spraybooth, and ink printing. Greifexplained thatthese other emission sources are permitted, with source-specific annual YOM limits in the facility's Federal Enforceable State OperatingPermit (FESOP), totaling 1.4 tons per year (tpy). 2nd Am. Pet. at 9, Exh. A at 2-1. Greifstates that, because theNaperville facility's total YOM emissions have historically been less than 25 tpy, the facility was previously not subject to Subpart TTand currently does not employ any equipmentto capture ordestroy YOM emissions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 9. In pastyears, Greifreported emissionsfrom the QC testprocess as follows: Year YOM Emissions (tpy) 2006 35.25

2007 46.7 2008 19.1 2009 7.7 2010 8.95 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. For2010, Greifreported plant-wide emissions of9.95 tons ofVOM and 1.87 tons of combined hazardous air pollutant (HAP). 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. 

### FESOPPermit Grcifs facility operates under Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP) No. 9707044. Condition 3 ofthe 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 otheremission units from the remainder ofthe facility, which include a paint spray booth, a caulk applicator, and ink printing. 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. The FESOP limits HAP emissionsto I0 tpy for any single HAP or 25 tpy for any combination ofHAPs. 2ndAm. Pet. at 3. 

### Violation Notice OnJuly 5, 2007, the Agency issued ViolationNotice A-2007-00132 to Greif. The Violation Notice alleged thatVOM emissions from GreifsNaperville facility's QC Test Process exceeded the maximum limits of22.8 tpy in Condition 3 ofits FESOP. 2nd Am. Pet. at 3. When Greifs emissions in 2006 and 2007 exceeded its FESOP limits of22.8 tpy, the Agency alleged Greiftriggered the 25 tpy applicabilitythreshold ofPart 218 SubpartTI. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(b). The !EPA informed Greifthat even ifits future VOM emissions are reduced below the threshold, the VOM emissions are now always subjectto Part 218 Subpart TI, because SubpartTI is a "once in, always in" regulation. 2ndAm. Pet. at 3. 

### LEGALFRAMEWORKFOR ADJUSTED STANDARD The Act and Boardrulesprovide thata petitioner mayrequest, 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 adoptinga regulation ofgeneral applicability, the Board may grant, in a subsequent adjudicatory determination, an adjusted standard forpersons who can justify such an adjustment consistent with subsection (a) ofSection 27 ofthis Act. In granting such adjusted standards ,the Board may impose such conditions as may be necessaryto accomplish the purposes ofthis Act. The rule-making provisions ofthe Jllinois Administrative Procedure Act and Title VII ofthis 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 ofthe Board'sprocedural rules. 4151LCS 5/28.1 (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.400 

### etseq. The Board's procedural rules specifythe 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 ofthe 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 subjectto the rulemaking provisions ofthe Act or the IJ!inois Administrative Procedure Act (5 lLCS 100/1-1 et seq. (201 0). See 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.202 (defining "adjudicatory proceeding"). Section 28.l(d)(1) ofthe Act and Section 104.408(a) ofthe Board's procedural rules require the adjusted standard petitionerto publish notice ofthe petition's filing by advertisement in a newspaperofgeneral 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 musttake place within 14 days afterthe petition is filed. 

### Jd. The newspaper notice must indicate that any person may cause apublic hearing to be held on the proposed adjusted standard by filing a hearing request with the Board within 21 days afterpublication. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (d)(1)(2010); 35 111. Adm. Code I04.408(b). The burden ofproofin 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 ofgeneral applicability, applies to the petitioner. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a) (20I0); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202, 1 04.400(a). In granting adjusted standards, the Board may impose conditions as may be necessaryto accomplish the purposes ofthe 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 "OtherEmission Units" ofthe 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 ControlRequirements Every owner oroperator ofan emission unit subjectto this Subpart shall comply with the requirements ofsubsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) below. a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieves an overall reduction in uncontro.lled VOM emissions ofat least 81 percent from each emission unit, or (Board Note: Forthe purpose ofthis provision, an emission unit is anypart or activity at a source ofatype that by itselfis subject to control requirements in other Subparts ofthis Part or40 CFR 60, incorporated by reference in Section 218.112, e.g., a coating line, aprinting line, aprocess unit, a wastewater system,7

or other equipment, or is otherwise any part oractivity 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) ofthe Clean AirAct as amended in I990 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 aparticular source is capable ofmeeting by the application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility." 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (September 17, 1979). The Section I82(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 ofattainment; and (3) all othermajor stationary sources ofVOM 

### (i.e., "non-CTG sources"). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2)(A)-(C). For a severe nonattainment area, asthe Chicago area was designated for ozone, 1the term "major source" was defined to include any stationary source which emits or has the potential to emit (PTE) at least 25 tons ofVOMperyear. 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 correctdeficiencies in Illinois' RACT rules as to certain YOM sources. 2 

### !d. at 26815. USEPA determined that a "catch-all"

1Pursuant to the 1990 CAA amendments, the Chicago area was classified as severe nonattainment underthe !-hourozone standard, however, on December 30, 2008, USEPA approved an Agency request thatthe 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 I997 8-hourozoneNational AmbientAir 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 ofGrundy 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). Pursuantto 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 ofthe proposed RACT rules on May I0, 1990. However, the Board removed the proposed generic rules to a subdocket and later dismissed that subdocket without adoptingthe generic rules. R89-16 (Board orders dated February 8, 1990 and July 3, 1990). As a result, USEPA determined that it mustpromulgate8 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 ofthis [generic] rule should be at least as stringent as 3.5 pounds ofYOC per gallon ofcoating 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 ofan emission source subject to paragraph (x) ofthis section shall comply with the requirements ofparagraph (x)(i), (ii) or (iii) ofthis section. (i) Emission capture and control equipment which achieve an overall reduction in uncontrolled YOM emissions ofat 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 ofJuly 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 ITis found at Section 218.980(c). In apolicy 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, Directorofthe Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards3at 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 applicabilitythreshold for the MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology for Hazardous AirPollutants) standards. 

### !d. This would enable facilities to increase emissions up to the applicability (major source)threshold, without becoming subjectto the control requirements. The "once in, always in" policy ensuresthe emission reductions are permanent. 

### !d. Although RACT is not specifically mentioned, the Board believes USEPA'sreasoningpresumably holds true for the RACT standards. On January 17, 1991, the Agency filed a proposal requiring implementation ofRACTfor YOM sources. RACTDeficiencies in the ChiCago Area: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 215 and the Addition ofPart 218, R91-7 (July 25, 1991). This rulemaking was necessary to correctdeficiencies 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/ttncaaal/t3/memorandalpteguid.pdf(last visited February28, 2012).

### 9

Id. The Board accepted the Agency's certification thatthe rulemaking was federally required pursuant to Section 28.2 ofthe Environmental Protection Act. Jd. The Board stated "[t]he proposed regulations are intended to be identical in effect to the [Chicago FJP] promulgated by [USEPA]." R91-7 (Order on Second Notice, June II, 1991). On July 25, 199I, the Board adopted, among other provisions, Part 218, SubpartTT, "Other Emission Sources." The new rules provided nearly identical language as subpart (x) ofthe Chicago FIP: Section 218.986 Control Requirements Every owner or operator ofan emission source subject to this Subpart shall comply with the requirements ofsubsection (a), (b) or (c) below. (a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieve an overall reduction in uncontrolled VOM emissions ofat 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 ofthe Volatile Organic Material RACT Rules Applicable to OzoneNonattainment 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 OzoneNonattainmentArea: Amendmentsto 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 211 and 218, R93-14. As a result ofthese rulemakings, SubpartTT Section 218.986 provided, and currentlyprovides: Section 218.986 Control Requirements Every owneror operatorofan emission unit subjectto this Subpart shall comply with the requirements ofsubsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) below. (a) Emission capture and control equipment which achieves an overall reduction in uncontrolled VOM emissions ofat least 81 percent from each emission unit, or (Board Note: For the purpose ofthis provision, an emission unit is any part oractivity at a source ofa type that by itselfis subjectto control requirements in other Subparts ofthis Part or40 CFR 60, incorporated by reference in Section 218.112, e.g., a coating line, aprinting line, a process unit, a wastewater system, or other equipment, oris 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, slip10

op. at 4 (Final Order, January 6, 1994). In that rulemaking, the Agency had identified 88 nonCTG sources in the Chicago nonattainment area with emissions in that range. 

### I d. Ofthose sources, 45 sources had actual emissions ofgreaterthan 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, Greifhad proposed language for the adjusted standard, but IEPA proposed slightly different language in the Agency Recommendation. Athearing, Greifagreed 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 ofvolatile 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). TheFacility manufactures fiber drums. Some ofthe fiber drums are lined with polyethylene to meet customer specifications, particularlyfor storage and transport offood-grade products. Lined drums mustbe tested to ensure the integrity ofthe polyethylene lining. That testing is performed atthe QC TestProcess, which consists ofthe following equipmentand 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 ofQC test fluid into each drum. b. The drums then are conveyed to the QC inspection station where the interior ofthe drum is visually inspected for pinholes.

c. The drum next is conveyed to a drying oven where most ofthe 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 throughoutthe QC Test Process as well as in the drying oven. 2. The Facilitywill reduce YOM emissions from its automated QC TestProcess by using a test fluid composed ofno 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 ofno more than 48 grams ofQC testfluid per drum with complianceto be measured at least once percalendar quarterby the following procedure.

a. Weigh a plastic bag on a gram scale to determine the weight ofthe bag.II

b. Place the plastic bag over the spray head ofthe wand ofthe 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 mannerofoperation with the plastic bag capturing the QC test fluid. Removethe plastic bag from the spray head ofthe wand ofthe 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 ofthe QC Test Process. Calculate the average weight ofQC testfluid sprayed per cycle and compare that averageto the standard ofan average ofno more than 48 grams ofQC 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. Anyrecords retained in an electronic format (e.g., computer) shall be capable ofbeingretrieved and printed on paperduring normal source office hours so as to be able to respond to an Jllinois EPA or USEPA request for records during the course ofa source inspection. 5. The Facility will maintain records ofits QC test fluid usage that will allowthe monthly calculation ofthe amount ofQCtest fluid used during the month and the calculation ofYOM 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 ofeach month. b. Maintain records ofthe volume ofQCtest fluid received at the Facility during each month.

c. The volume ofQC test fluid used for a month shall equal the inventory volume on the first day ofthe month plus the volume received at the Facility during the month, less the volume in inventory onthe last day of the month. d. The volume used during a month calculated in step c shall be multiplied by the YOM content ofthe QC test fluid (in pounds per unit ofvolume) to compute the weight (in pounds) ofYOM 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 reportthose results to Facility management. 6. Greifwill continueto investigate the availability ofalternative QC test fluids with lower YOM content. Greifwill incorporate such lower YOM QC test fluids into its automated QC Test Process provided that the lower YOM QC test fluids allow visual detection ofpinholes or other tears or imperfections in the drum linings within an acceptable period oftime and does not result in any negative product quality impacts. 7. The proposed adjusted standard will not affectthe calculation ofGreifs potential Emissions Reduction Market System ("ERMS") baseline or its ERMS allotment if Greifs Naperville plant should participate in the ERMS program. 8. Environmental staffofGreifsparent companywill conduct a formal training session for Naperville facility personnel on the requirements ofthe FESOP and the internal procedures for tracking compliance with FESOP conditions. 9. Emissions and operation ofthe 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 ofdata. Rec. at 9-11. 

### GREIF'S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE, ALTERNATIVES,AND ANALYSIS Technological Feasibility Compliancewith theExisting RACT Standard Greifcommissioned a consulting engineer, Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., PE, to conduct "a RACT Studyto evaluate whethervarious emission contro.l options for the QC Test Process satisfyRACTcontrol requirements in [35111. Adm. Code§ 218.986(a)]" (RACT Study). 2nd Am. Pet. at 4. In orderto meetthe 81 percent capture and control requirement ofSection 218.986(a), Greifexplained that an effective capture system would require atunnel enclosure overthe entire 165-foot conveyor system starting at the QC spray station and extending overthe drum paint oven. 2nd Am. Pet. at I0, Exh. A at 1-1, 3-1, Tr. at 13. Ductwork would then connectthe enclosure to a control device. 

### !d. This type ofcapture system would capture 9013 percent ofthe YOM emissions and was assumed for each ofthe 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 ofachieving at least 81 percent capture and control as required by Section 218.986(a). ld. With the high volume ofair that would need to be treated from the 165- foot enclosure, Greifnoted that the control equipment would also need to be commensurately sized. Exh. A at 1-2, Tr. at 12. Greifalso noted thatthe control options could result in increased emissions ofotherpollutants as well as increased health and safety risks. 2nd Am. Pet. at 6, Exh. A at 1-2 to 1-3. Forthe 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. Id. However, the use ofnatural gas generates emissions ofNOx. CO, and small quantities ofYOM and HAPs, which would partially offset YOM reductions that would be achieved. Jd., Exh. A at 1-2 to 1-3,3-1. Forthe second option, the RACT Study characterized carbon adsorbers as systems for controlling lowto 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. Greifexplained that carbon adsorbers work best with YOMs that are not soluble in water. ld. Greifpointed out that the QC test fluid is water soluble, so the regeneration fluid would likely be sent to the local sewage district. Jd. Duringtreatment at the sewage district, the YOMs would likely be released into the atmosphere, which Greifcontends would not achieve a true reduction in YOM. 2nd Am. Pet. at 12, Exh. A at 3-1 to 3-2. Additionally, Greifexpressed concern for the health and safety risks associated with carbon adsorbers. 2nd Am. Pet. at 12. Greifexplained that ketones found in the denatured alcohol QC test fluid present a risk offire caused by reactions between the ketones and carbon in the beds. !d. Although waterdeluge systems are used to control such fires, Greifremained concerned aboutthe increased risk. !d., Exh. A at 1-2 to 1-3,3-1 to 3-2. Forthe third option, the RACT Study evaluated biofilters in combination with material substitution (dilution). 2nd Am. Pet. at 13. Greifexplained 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 meetthe 81 percent requirement would require another control technology or dilution ofthe QC test fluid with water. Jd. Since biofilters must be heated to maintain performance during the winter, Greifpoints out that natural gas heat would increaseNO, emissions, partially offsettingthe benefitfrom reductions in YOM emissions. 

### Jd., Exh. 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 ofthe drum to the side walls. !d. The second option ofmixing the QC test fluid with waterwas found to satisfyproduct quality standards as well as a reduction in YOM emissions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 14-15, Exh. A at 3-2 to 3-3, Tr. at 15. Greifexperimented with five potential dilution scenarios ofdenatured 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 ofdenatured 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 ofspraying. !d. at 14-15. Based on the testruns, Greifdetermined that the 45%/55% dilution was the highest dilution percentage that would allowtheplantto meet the requirements for customerquality assurance. !d., Tr. at 15. Bymixing water with the QC test fluid 

### in a ratio of45 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, Greifdetermined that it could reduce the amount ofQC test fluid sprayed on each drum to an amount notto exceed 48 grams. ld. at 15. Greifstated that the proposed modifications would reduce YOM emissions from Greifs QC Test Process by 70 percent on a unit basis and achieve annual emissions belowthe 22.8 tpy limit in Condition 3 of the FESOP. Jd. The RACT Studyconcluded thatthe 45/55 QC test fluid mixture constitutes RACT for Greifs QC TestProcess at its Naperville facility. !d., Exh. A at4-5 to 4-6. Greifnoted that it has already implemented the water-diluted QC TestProcess 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 perton ofVOM controlled $17,672 $12,594 $11,667 -$54115

The RACT Study stated that costs for the capture and control options included construction ofthe 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 ofair that would need to be treated from the 165-foot long enclosure, the RACT Study noted thatthe control equipment would also need to be larger, impactingthe cost. ld Greifstated 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. Greifcited the following cases in support ofthis argument: In rePetition ofFormel1ndustries, Inc., AS 00-13, slip op. at 9 (Jan. 18, 2001) ($10,911- $18,041 perton ofYOM reduced); In re Petition ofFord Motor Company (Chicago Assembly Plant), AS 00-06, slip op. at 5 (April6, 2000) (citing In rePetition ofLouis Berkman. AS 97-5 (Dec. 4, 1997) aff'dsub 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 ofreductions)); In re JointPetition ofReynolds Metals Company and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. AS 91-8 (Sept. 21, 1995) ($40,000 per ton ofYOM 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, Greifconcluded that add-on controls and achieving a capture and control rate ofat least 81 percent ofthe YOM emissions from its QC TestProcess is not economically reasonable for Greif. 2nd Am. Pet. at 26. Rather, the RACT Study found the option ofusing the 45/55 water-diluted QC test fluid would actually be less expensive than the previously used test fluid ofI00 percent denatured alcohol. Exh. A at 3-3. Greifconcluded, "[T]heRACT Study demonstrates that dilution ofthe QC test fluid is the only technically feasible and economically reasonable alternative." 2nd Am. Pet at 9-10. Impact on the Environment Petition Greifexplained that DuPage County, where GreifsNaperville facility is located, is part ofthe Metropolitan Chicago Interstate Air Quality Control Region. See 40 CFR 81.14. Greif stated thatthis area is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone for both the !-hour and 8- hour standards under40 CFR 81.314. 2nd Am. Pet. at 8,16. Greifstated that its YOM emissions from the QC TestProcess have a "minimal impact on air quality." 2ndAm. Pet. at 18. Greifcompared 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. Greifcalculated that YOM emissions from the QC Test Process would account for 0.19 percent ofthe Metropolitan Chicago YOM point source emissions and 0.04 percent ofthe State-wide YOM point source emissions. Id. Greifcited the following previous cases where the Board granted adjusted standards for Subpart TT sources with YOM emissions higherthan Greif: In rePetition ofFord Motor Co. (Chicago AssemblyPlant), AS 00-6, slip op. at 5 (April 6, 2000) (VOM emissions were limited16

to 390 tpy); and In rePetition ofAlumax. 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. Greifexplained 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, Greifnoted that the proposed adjusted standard relying on a water-diluted QC test fluid is not expected to change the nature or volume ofwaste or wastewater from the Naperville facility. 2nd Am. Pet. at 20. Greifalso 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 ofYOM reductions. 2nd Am. Pet. at 19, citing In rePetition ofAlumax.lnc., AS 92-13, slip op. at 7 (Sept. I, 1994); and In 

### re Joint Petition ofQuantum 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, Greifsubmitted their "Air Quality Impact Analysis ofthe YOC [Volatile Organic Compound] Emissions from the GreifPackaging Facility in Naperville, lllinois Usingthe Scheffe Tables" (Analysis). Greifcommissioned Mr. Ponderto perform the Analysis to quantifythe air quality impact associated withtheproposed adjusted standard. The Analysis was designed specifically to evaluatethe airquality impact associated with the difference in YOM emissions between the proposed adjusted standard and compliance with the 81 percent capture and control requirement ofSubpart IT. Analysis at 2. The Analysis utilized the "VOCINOx Point Source Screening Tables" by Richard D. Scheffe, USEPA Office ofAir QualityPlanning 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 orYOM, also referred to as non-methane organic compound (NMOC), emissions and NOx emissions. Analysis at 2. Based on the ratio ofYOM (NMOC) to NOx, the Scheffe method can be used to determine the impact ofthe emissions on ambient ozone levels. Tr. at 20. Forthe YOM input, the Analysis assumedthe 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 of84.8 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 thatthe theoretical maximum emissions of84.8 was based on the FESOP limit of22.8 tpy divided by one minusthe percent reduction assumed for the adjusted standard of73.1 percent as follows: 84.8 tpy

## =22.8 tpy I (1-0.731). Responseto17 Hearing Questions at 2, Tr. at 28. Greifindicated 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. Ponderthen 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 ofthe facility's location. Analysis at I. With a YOM (NMOC) to NOx ratio of33.63, 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**~** 1.47ppb. 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 !-hourozone measurement at the Lisle station for 2007-2009 was 99 ppb, and the highest ofthe fourth highest measurements was 80 ppb. Jd. The analysis concluded tbatthe addition ofthe 1.47 ppb ozone increment would not result in an exceedance ofthe 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 ofthe fourth highest 8- hour measurements at the Lisle station for 2007-2009 was 62.7 ppb. Jd. The Analysis found that addingthe 1.47 ppb ozone incrementto 62.7 ppb would result in an ozone concentration of64.17 ppb, which would be less than the 8-hour standard of75 ppb established in 2008. 

### !d. The Analysis pointed outthat 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 ozoneNAAQS." Jd. at 3. Mr. Ponderadded thatthe 1.47 ppb ozone increment would not cause orcontribute to violations ofthe ozoneNAAQS ordelay effortsto attain the NAAQS in atimely manner. Response to Hearing Questions at 3. Substantially DifferentFactors Greifargues that "the factors relating to Greif's abilityto reduce YOM emissions are substantially and significantly different from any the Board may have relied on in adopting SubpartTT." 2nd Am. Pet. at 20; GreifBriefat 7. Greifmakes four points in support ofthis argument.18 First, Greifstates that the Board did not rely on any specific industry factors in adopting SubpartTT, and specifically did not considerthe drum manufacturingbusiness. 2nd Am. Pet. at 20-21; GreifBriefat 7. Greifstatesthat Subpart TT is a "catch-all" regulation applicable to YOM sources not covered elsewhere in Part 218. 2nd Am. Pet. at 21; GreifBriefat 7. Greif cites to the Board's discussion in Petition ofFord 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, Greifasserts 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. Greifstates that constructing capture equipment overan 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 abilityto manage YOM emissions by diluting test fluid and reducing the amountoftestfluid sprayed into drums is different from factors the Board may have considered in promulgating the rule. 

### !d. Third, Greifasserts thatthephysical layout ofthe Facility and slow evaporation oftest fluid are substantially and significantly different from other manufacturing activities that may have been considered by the Board. 2nd Am. Pet. at 21; GreifBriefat 9. These factors limit Greifs abilityto capture and control YOM emissions through add-on controls. 2nd Am. Pet. at 21. Greifstates that the testing fluid begins to evaporate while being sprayed in the spray station. 2nd Am. Pet. at 22; GreifBriefat 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. Greifargues thatthese factors necessitate a complex and large capture system thatthe Board did not consider when adopting Subpart TT. 2nd Am. Pet. at 23; GreifBriefat 9. Fourth, Greifasserts thatthe cost to achieve 81 percent capture and control under Section 218.986(a) for the QC TestProcess "would exceed the threshold cost level the Board previously has found to be economically reasonable." 2nd Am. Pet. at21. GreifsRACT Study considered three capture and control systems: (1) captureplus recuperative thennal oxidizers, (2) capture plus carbon adsorbers, and (3) captureplus biofilters. 2nd Am. Pet. at 23; GreifBriefat 3. Each ofthese technologies could achieve at least 81 percent capture and control ofYOM emissions. 

### !d. Greifestimates thatthese technologies range in cost from $11,667 to $17,672 perton of annual YOM removed. 

### !d. Greifcites to the following Board opinions to conclude thatthe costs estimated in Greifs RACT Study "exceed the threshold cost level the Board previously has found to be economically unreasonable": In re Petition ofFonnellndustries, Inc., AS 00-13 (January 18, 2001) ($10,911-$18,041 perton ofYOM reduced); In rePetition ofthe Louis Berkman Co., AS 97-5 (December 4, 1997), affirmed by Jllinois Environmental Protection Agencyv. Pollution Control Board and The Louis Berkman Co., 308111. App. 3d 741, 746, 721 N.E.2d 723, 726-27 (1999) ($1734 average perton reduced); In re Joint Petition ofReynolds Metals Company and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, AS 91-8 (September 21, 1995) ($40,000 perton ofYOM reduced). 2nd Am. Pet. at 23.19 Consistency with Federal Law Greifstatesthat its proposed adjusted standard constitutes RACT for the Facility and therefore is consistent with the federal CAA. 2nd Am. Pet. at 25. Greifnotes that Section 110 of the federal CAA grants individual states the authority to promulgate a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofair quality standards subject to approval by USEPA. Id. Greifexplained that ifthe Board grants the adjusted standard, the Agency will need to request USEPA approval in the form ofa SIP revision. However, Greifnoted thatthe adjusted standard would become effective at the State level immediately upon granting by the Board. 2nd Am. Pet. at 7 citingto In rePetition ofAlumax, AS 92-13, slip op. at 4 (September I, 1994); Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Sources Emitting Volatile Organic Materials in the Chicago OzoneNonattainment Area: 25 Tons, R93-14, slip op. (Second Notice) at 5-6 (November 18, 1993). AGENCYRECOMMENDATION On October II, 20II, the Agency filed its recommendation that the Board grantthe relief requested in Greifs second amended adjusted standard petition, subject to listed conditions. Rec. at 9-11. At hearing, Greifagreed with the language in the recommendation for adoption by the Board. Tr. at 16. The Agency alleged that Greifbecame subjectto the 81 percent capture and control requirements because SubpartTTis a "once in-always in" regulation. Rec. at 4. Therefore, the Agency states Greifis still subjectto the requirements ofSection 218.986(a) even ifplant-wide emissions are reduced belowthe applicability threshold. Jd. The Agency did not accept Greifs assertion that granting the petition will have "minimal impact on airquality." Rec. at 7, quoting 2nd Am. Pet. at 18. The Agency states, the Agency does not acceptthis argument on its face, as almost any individual source could make the same claim, and it is the aggregate ofsources in the area thatcauses ozone nonattainment. However, the technical factors in this instance and the emission reductions Greifhas 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'stechnical staffat hearing, clarifying its recommendation. Tr. at 31-32. As to whetherthe Agency considered the increment of I.47 ppb "potentially significant,"the Agency stated: [USEPA] has not defined a level ofsignificance for ozone. However, the Agency reviewed the impact ofan increment of 1.47 [ppb] on the current air quality in the area. For2007-2009, the one-hourdesign value at Lisle, the closestmonitoring site to the facility, is 70.7 [ppb]. The Agency believesthat 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 the20 design value of62.7 [ppb] for 8-hour ozone standard (2007-2009) at Lisle monitoring site will not cause or contribute to a violation ofthe 8-hour ozone [NAAQS] of75 [ppb]. Agency Answers at 1. The Agency further stated: The Agency believes that granting ofthis proposed adjusted standard will not cause or contribute to violations ofthe National AmbientAir Quality Standards for ozone or delay the Agency's efforts to attain or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone in atimely manner. Agency Answers at 2. In its recommendation, the Agency strongly disputed Greifs assertion that otherBoard decisions set a RACT cost threshold applicable here. Rec. at 11-12. Specifically, the Agency questioned the relevance ofan average cost ofcontrol in Petition ofFord to Greif. The Agency pointed out thatthe $1,734 figure cited in Petition ofFord was discussed in context with cases concerning metal coating facilities in attainment areas. 

### Jd. As to costs, the Agency explained thatthe $1,734 figure in Petition ofFord actually represented an average figure, notingthat the Board stated, "costs cannot be deemed unreasonable simplybecause they exceed the average." ld. at II, quoting In rePetition ofFord, AS 97-5, slip op. at I0 (Dec. 4, 1997). Additionally, the Agency argued thatthe basis ofthe $1,734 figure (in 1996 dollars) was derived from a 1980 figure of$1,032 perton and does not representthe cost ofRACTtoday which has continued to increase as tighter control requirements have been put in place. Rec. at 11-12. The Agencywent 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 thatthe unique factors guide the Board in determiningRACT for aparticular facility. ld. In this case, the Agency stressed that Greifs definition ofRACT should be considered specificto the Naperville facility, and not be considered RACTfor all other sources which have the same costs. Jd. In this regard, the Agencyexplained a specific dollar figure for RACT is notwarranted, stating, "[a]nydollar figure would only obscure the site-specific nature ofeach RACT decision." Rec. at 12. The Agency concluded by saying, "The [Agency] believes that Greifqualifies 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 ifthe 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 Greifhave discussed the petition with USEPA, and USEPAprovided comments. ld. At hearing, Greifelaborated that during discussionsbetween the Agency, USEPA, and Greifitself, USEPA raised concerns regarding consistency ofthe proposed adjusted standard with Section II0 ofthe CAA, which addresses the anti-backsliding provision related to SIP revisions. Tr. at 33. Greifstated 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 ortpy. Jd. at 34. Greifnoted thatthose limits are identical to limits in its current FESOP. Id.21

STANDARD OF REVIEW The Board agrees with Greifand the Agency that the regulation ofgeneral applicability at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) does not specify a level of justificationfor an adjusted standard. 2nd Am. Pet. at 8; Rec. at 5. Therefore, pursuant to Section 28.l(c) ofthe Act, the burden of proofis on the petitionerto 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 thatpetitioner; 2. The existence ofthose factorsjustifies 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 ofgeneral 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 Greifseeks relieffrom the Board's 81 percent control and capture RACT requirement under Section 218.986(a) in the form ofan adjusted standard. Greifargued that achieving a capture and control rate ofat least 81 percentofthe YOM emissions from its QC Test Process is not economically reasonable for Greifdue to the large enclosure that would need to be constructed over its entire 165-footconveyor system and the high volume ofairthat would need to be treated. 2nd Am. Pet. at I0. Accordingly, Greifrequested to apply a specific definition of RACTto its facility in lieu ofthe 8 I percent capture and control requirement. 

### !d. at 26. 

### Substantially and Significantly DifferentFactors Section 182(b)(2) ofthe CAArequires states to adopt RACT for all major sources of YOM in ozone nonattainment areas with the intention ofachieving compliance with the ozone NAAQS. USEPA stated, "[t]heprimary purpose of[35 III. Adm. Code § 218] is to satisfythe requirements in section I82(b) ofthe [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. USEPA defined RACT as "the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable ofmeeting by the application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility." 76 Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30,201 1), referringto 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (Sept. I7, 1979). The definition ofRACTat 40 CFR 51.100(o) provides: Reasonably available control technology (RACT) means devices, systems, process modifications, or otherapparatus ortechniques that are reasonably available taking into account:22

(1) The necessity ofimposing such controls in orderto attain and maintain a national ambient air quality standard; (2) The social, environmental, and economic impact ofsuch controls; and (3) Alternative means ofproviding for attainment and maintenance of such standard. (Thisprovision 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 I08 ofthe CAA that are used to determine RACT. 85 U.S.C. 7408. However, USEPA recognized that the category-specific CTGs would notcover all major sources. 55 Fed. Reg. 26814,26834 (June 29, 1990). USEPA stated, "[i]n orderto 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 additionto tightening RACT for source categories for which RACT has already been defined." "Beyond YOC RACT CTG Requirements," USEPA Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards (April 1995), EPA-453/R95-0104 at 1-1. Formajor sources in the Chicago area notcovered 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). Greifalso noted this, stating, "SubpartTT ofPart 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 ChicagoFIP, USEPA explained the need for subsection (x) to cover sources not alreadycovered by USEPA's CTGs: USEPA wishes to pointoutthat a "catch-all" generic rule is needed for the regulatory approach chosen by the State. This is because the Illinois categoryspecific approach may not coverall 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 existingpolicy on majornon-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 ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (April 1995), EPA-453/R-95-0I0 appeared at http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/byndract.pdf(last visited February 28, 2012). 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 majornon-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 ifthe source is not already covered by a non-CTG source category rule. To be consistent with RACT, the control requirement ofthis rule should be at least as stringent as 3.5 pounds of YOC per gallon ofcoating or 81 percent overall control. Adoption ofsuch a rule presents virtually no administrative drawbacks (sources covered by an existing non-CTG rule will not be affected) and producespotentially significant environmental benefits. 55 Fed. Reg. 26814, 26834 (June 29, 1990) The Board notes thatthe 81 percentrequirement 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 manufacturingprocesses]; 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 percentcapture and control requirement of 218.986(a) is intended to be at least as stringent asthe control requirements for these other categories. The Board finds that the issues concerningthe control ofemissions at Greifs plant were not anticipated when the Board promulgated the generic 81 percentrule in Section 218.986(a). Therefore, the Board finds that factors relatingto Greifsplant are substantiaBy and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to Greif. Justification ofAdjusted Standard As summarized above, Greifpresented aRACT Study which evaluated optionsto 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 recuperativethermal oxidizers (RTO), (2) capture plus carbon adsorbers, and (3) capture plus biofilters and material substitution. The RACT Study found each option would be capable ofachieving at least 81 percent capture and control asrequired by Section 218.986(a). However, Greifargued thatthe costs would not be economically reasonable. 2nd Am. Pet. at I6, 26. With the high volume of air that would need to be treated from the I65-footenclosure, Greifnoted thatthe 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 perton ofYOM controlled for an RTO to $12,594 perton for a carbon adsorber, to $11,667 perton for a biofilter. 2nd Am. Pet. at 4, 12-I5, Exh. A at I-2. In addition to the economic drawbacks, Greifnoted that the capture and control options could result in increased emissions ofotherpoButants 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 percentrequirement, USEPA indicated thatthe source "would have to develop a24

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, Greifhas 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 of45 percent denatured alcohol to 55 percent water and reducing the amount ofQC test fluid sprayed on each drum, Greifstated 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 ofSubpart TT and below the 22.8 tpy limit in Condition 3 ofthe 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 ofwhat constitutes RACT and the relevance ofcases cited by Greifto demonstrate costs. However, the Agency stated, "RACT is not a cost issue alone." Rec. at 12. The Agency contended that the unique factors ofa facility should guide the Board in determining RACT for a particular facility and that a specific dollarfigure for RACT is not warranted. Id. The Agency recommended grantingthe adjusted standard withthe 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 thatUSEPA defined RACT as "the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable ofmeeting by the application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility." 76 Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30, 20II). The Board finds Greifevaluated 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 whatmakes Greif's facility unique is the capture costofthe 165- foot long enclosure and high volume ofairthat would need to be treated. Greifdistinguishes itselffrom RACT backstop in the Subpart TT "catch-all" rule. Based on the determination of RACT developed specifically for Greif'sNaperville facility in its second amended petition and the substantially and significantly different factors described above, the Board finds the adjusted standard isjustified. Impact on Public Health and the Environment The primary concern ofthe impact ofYOM emissions from Greif's Naperville facility is whether such emissions would cause orcontributeto violations ofthe 1-hour or 8-hourozone NAAQS. The current 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.075 ppm, whichwas adopted on March 12, 2008, replacing the previous 1997 8-hourozoneNAAQS of0.08ppm. In 1997, USEPA revoked the !-hourozone standard of0.12 ppm in all areas. However, USEPA indicated that some areas have continued obligations under the !-hourozone standard to address "anti-backsliding". 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). The Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis areas are currently25

classified as moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 6 See 40 CFR 81.314,76 Fed. Reg. 74015 (Nov. 30, 2011). Greifstated thatthe adjusted standard would have "minimal impact on air quality." 2nd Am. Pet. at 18. Greifrelied 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 occurwith 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 1.47 ppb. The environmental impact was then assessed by adding the ozone increment to the fourth highest measured 1-hour and 8- hour ozone concentrations of80 ppb and 62.7 ppb for the years 2007-2009 at the Lisle air

. monitoring station. The analysis found thatthe 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 ofthe adjusted standard, Greifhas committed to continue investigating the availability ofalternative QC test fluids with lower YOM content. Greifhas 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 ofthe 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 ofthe petition will have "minimal impact on air quality." Rec. at 7, quoting 2nd Am. Pet at 18. TheAgency argued that almost "any individual source could makethe same claim, and it is the aggregate ofsources in the area that causes ozone nonattainment." Rec. at 7-8. In its assessment ofthe environmental impact, the Agency added the 1.47 ppb to the !-hourozone design value of70.7 ppb at Lisle for the years 2007-2009 and the 8-hourozone design value of62.7 ppb for the years 2007-2009. Agency Answers at 1. Based on the result, the Agency concluded that adding 1.47 ppb will notcause orcontribute to a violation ofthe ]-houror 8-hour ozoneNAAQS. Agency Answers at 1. The Board notes that although USEPA revoked the 1-houraverage 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 ofthe proposed adjusted standard with Section II0 ofthe CAA, which addresses the anti-backsliding provision related to SIP revisions. Tr. at 33. Greifindicated thatUSEPA 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 permonth or

6 In a July 29, 2010 letterto USEPA, !EPA indicated that ozone air quality data for 2007-2009 "demonstratethat the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS has been attained in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, !L-IN and St. Louis, MO-IL areas without NOx RACT in the Illinois portions ofthose 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 ofthe 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 ofcausing or contributing to violations ofthe ozone NAAQS or delaying the State's efforts to attain or maintain the ozoneNAAQS 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 II0 ofthe Clean AirAct to adopt regulations that are part ofthe State'splan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofair quality standards. The adjusted standard procedure to revise a Board regulation on a site-specific basis is consistentwiththe authority granted to the states under Section II0 ofthe CAA. Ifthe 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 Greifthe requested relieffrom the rule is consistent with federal law. Section 27(a) oftheAct Section 28.1 ofthe Act addresses adjusted standards and refers to Section 27(a) ofthe Act, which states in part: In promulgatingregulations underthis Act, the Boardshalltake into accountthe existingphysical conditions, the characterofthe area involved, including the character ofsurrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature ofthe existing air quality, or receiving body ofwater, as the case may be, and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness ofmeasuring or reducing the particulartype ofpollution. 415ILCS 5/27(a) (2010) (emphasis added). By its terms, Section 27(a) does not state a burden ofproofor 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 considerthe record ofthe adjusted standard proceeding in light ofthe Section 27(a) factors, butthere is no threshold ofevidence thatthe adjusted standard petitionermust meet with respectto those factors. 

### See Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392,395,789N.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 ofthe 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, 346N.E.2d 212, 221 (5th Dist. 1976) ("The requirement ofsection 27 is a flexible one and ofnecessity requires that a great deal ofdiscretion be exercised by the Board.").27

Conditions Greifhad proposed language for the adjusted standard, but the Agencyproposed slightly different language in its recommendation. At hearing, Greifagreed 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) ofthe Act, which are identical in wording to those suggested by the parties. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (a), 35 

### Jll. Admin. Code§ I04.438(a). CONCLUSION The Board finds that Greifhas provided sufficientproofandjustification under Section 28.1 (c) ofthe 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 ofGreif's fiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, DuPage County. The Board therefore grants Greifthe requested adjusted standard, subject to conditions. The reliefis effective as of the date ofthis order. This opinion constitutes the Board's findings offact and conclusions oflaw. 

### ORDER Pursuant to Section 28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (201 0), the Board grants GreifPackaging, LLC (Greif), an adjusted standard from 35 lll. Adm. Code 218.986(a). I. The adjusted standard applies to the emission ofvolatile organic material (YOM) into the atmosphere from the automated Quality Control (QC) TestProcess line at Greif's fiber drum manufacturing facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois (the Facility). The Facilitymanufactures fiber drums. Some ofthe fiber drums are lined with polyethylene to meet customer specifications, particularly for storage and transport offood-grade products. Lined drums mustbetested to ensure the integrity ofthepolyethylene lining. Thattesting is performed atthe QC TestProcess, which consists ofthe following equipmentand 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 ofQC test fluid into each drum. b. The drums then are conveyed to the QC inspection station where the interior ofthe drum is visually inspected for pinholes.

### 28

c. The drum next is conveyed to a drying oven where most ofthe 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 TestProcess by using a test fluid composed ofno 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 ofno more than 48 grams ofQC test fluid per drum with compliance to be measured at leastonce per calendar quarter by the following procedure.

a. Weigh aplastic bag on a gram scale to determine the weight ofthe bag. b. Place the plastic bag overthe sprayhead ofthe wand ofthe QC Test Process and secure it in place with a rubber band or binderclip.

c. Cycle the QC Test Process bypassing a drum through the process in the normal manner ofoperation with the plastic bag capturing the QC test fluid. Remove the plastic bag from the spray head ofthe wand ofthe 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 ofthe QC TestProcess. Calculate the average weight ofQC testfluid sprayed percycle and compare that average to the standard ofan average ofno more than 48 grams ofQC test fluid perdrum. 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 orUSEPA upon request. Any records retained in an electronic format (e.g., computer) shall be capable ofbeing retrieved and printed on paper during normal source office hours so as to be able to respond to an Illinois EPA orUSEPA requestfor records during the course ofa source inspection. 5. The Facility will maintain records ofits QC test fluid usage that will allow the monthly calculation ofthe amount ofQC test fluid used duringthe month and the calculation ofYOM emissions on a 12-month rolling total basis for comparison to annual YOM limits in the FESOP. To allowthese calculations, the Facility will:

### 29

a. Record the volume ofQC test fluid held as inventoryon the first and last day ofeach month. b. Maintain records ofthe volume ofQC test fluid received at the Facility during each month.

c. The volume ofQC test fluid used for a month shall equal the inventory volume on the first day ofthe month plus the volume received at the Facility duringthe 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 bythe YOM content ofthe QC testfluid (in pounds per unit ofvolume)to compute the weight (in pounds) ofYOM emitted during the month.

e. Using the emissions ofYOM 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 reportthoseresults to Facility management. 6. Greifwill continue to investigate the availability ofalternative QC test fluids with lower YOM content. Greifwill incorporate such lowerYOM QC test fluids into its automated QC Test Process provided thatthe lower YOM QC testfluids allow visual detection ofpinholes or othertears or imperfections in the drum linings within an acceptable period oftime and does not result in any negativeproduct quality impacts. 7. The proposed adjusted standard will not affectthe calculation ofGreirspotential Emissions Reduction Market System (ERMS) baseline or its ERMS allotment if GreifsNaperville plant should participate in the ERMS program. 8. Environmental staffofGreifsparent company will conducta formal training session for Naperville facility personnel on the requirements ofthe FESOP and the internal procedures for tracking compliance with FESOP conditions. 9. Emissions and operation ofthe QC TestProcess 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 ofdata. IT IS SO ORDERED.30

Section 41 (a) ofthe 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 thatmotions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days afterthe order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.520; 

### see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.902, I02.700, I02.702. l, John Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board adopted the above opinion and order on April 5, 2012, by a vote of5-0.

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board