### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTiON CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MATTER OF:

, I 

### REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL 'oMISSIONS FROM ) GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 2] 1, ) 218, and219 NOTICE 

### To: John Therriault. Assistant Clerk Iliinois Poilution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 

### West Randolph. Suite I ]

- 500 

### Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

### SEE ATTACHED SERViCE LIST Rl1-23 (Rulelnaking-Air)



### PLEASE 

### TAKE NOT1eE that 

### J have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the TESTIMONY OF DAVID BLOOMBERG and the TESTIMONY OF YOGfNDER MAHAJAN ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, copies 

### of which are herewith served upon you.

Respectf,J11y submitted, ILLIN01S ENV1RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY:~?~f'- Dana Vetterho fter ASSIstant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel DATED: Apri] 14,20] J
J 02 J N. Grand 

### Ave. East P.O. Box ]9276 Springfield, 

### IL 62794-9276 (217) 

### 782-5544

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 14, 

### 2011

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLlXTION COi'i,ROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVALLABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA'I'ILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP 11 AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM, CODE 211, 218 ,md 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Rll-23 (Rulemaking

- Air)



### TESTIMONY OF OAVlD BLOOMBlmc My name is David E, Bloomberg, I am employed by t.'tc Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency") as the Compliance Unit Manager in the Compllance Section within the Division ofAir Pollution ControL I have been at the Agency in this capacity for almost seven years, and was previously an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air QUilllty Planning Section for twelve and a half years, My academic credentials include a Bachelor of Science degree in ceramic engineering from the University of lIlinois at Champaign-Urbana, as well as completion of all graduate coursework required for a Master's degree in the same area Ofsludy, I have also completed

numerous environmental courses over the years and provided training on air pollution regulations and compliance issues to industry personnel and environmental consultants, Among my duties, I wrote the technical support document and co-wrote the proposed regulatory language for the original Group II rulemaking (II. 10-8) covering a pOltion ofthe regulations being revised in this current matter, and did likewise for previous rulemakings involving lithographic printing lll1d several coating categories, I fwther co-wrote fhe proposed regulatory language for ihe GroU]) II categories in tlle current rulemaking as well o and have been

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011

the Agency's main contact 

### flir interpretations and questions involving these rules and other regulations coveTing printing and coating for over 16 years. In that role cU}(f a,s part. of rny 

### Compliance Unit iv1anager responsibilities, I have also participated in both adjusted standard and cnforcenlent hearings involving sources engaged in the printing of flexible packaging. In addition, I have been llwol\'cd in designing, v"Titing, implementing, and enforcing a wide vmiety of air pollution regulations, including those for mercury, nitrogen oxides trading, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and tile Emissions Reduction M.arket System. My duties as the ComplifJlee Unit Manager involve supervisiolJ of the Bureau of Air staff who review documents submittcd by sources, such as exceedance, semi,annual, and alJnual compliance reports, as well as those who review emissions tests, and I approve all such reviews before they are finalized. In addition, I pmi:icipate in decisions regarding enforcement of the Board's air polIlltion regulations and oversee The proce.ss of sending otlt Violation Notices and related activities, 

## r am here today to pt'ovide testimony and answer questions pertaining to the modifications to the categories covered by what is known collectively as Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II, which includes lithographic printing, letterpress printing, flexible packaging printing, tlat wood paneling coating, and industrial cleaning solvents. A more extensive discussion of these proposed modifications can be found in the Statement of Reasons, but I will summarize briefly again here. Most ohhe mnendmems bcing proposed by Illinois have been mandated by the United States Enviromnenta! PTotection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and are necessary in order to obtain U.S. EPA's approval ofljjinois' State Implementation Pllm CSfP") submittal. Otber changes are

2

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011
being proposed in order to clarify and simplify S01l1e sections of the rules tl1at were found to

cause confusion for affected sources. On Juiy 

### 29, 20JO, the Agency submitted the adopted rules 10 the U.S. EPA for their approval to include U,em as amendmellls to ll1inois' SIP. After reviewing the rules, the U.S. EPA inFmned the Agency that the revisions were insufficient and that U.S. EPA would not
approve them without amendments. GeneraHy, the U.S, EPA identified U,e following issues with the rules for which 1 am testifying: lnadeqwtte reeordkeeping requirements for exempt
sources, insufficient '10M limitations in certain categories, typographical errors, provisions requiring clarification, failure to include definitions for certain terms, and failure to implement certain recommendationS set forth in the CTGs. The Agency canfen-ed wiUl the U,S, EPA extensively ill an dfOlt to resolve these issues. While the U,S, EPA agreed, after Agency explanation, that several of its suggested revisions

were Dot necessary, they also affinl1cd that the remaining revisions were mandatory in order to obtain SIP approval. The U,S. EPA sent a letter, dated March 9, 2011, to the Chief ofthe Bureau of Air at the Agency, listing the outstanding deficiencies that must be addressed by the Agency (attached to this testimony as Exhibit A). As such, this proposal addresses these amendments, additional amendments subsequently identified by the U,S, EPA, 3Jld amendments identified by the lllinois EPA separately as needing correction. The Agency agrees witb US. EPA that all the proposed changes are technically feasible and economicallY reasonable. Furthermore, as noted earlier, incorporating these adclitions and modifications to existing H1inois regulations has been required by U.S. EPA, whose staff has 'indicated such changes need to be made in order to obtain SIP approval.

3

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL ADM CODE 21 

### J, 218 and 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) RII-23 (RuJemaking

- Air)

TESTIMONY OF YOGINDER MARAJAN My name is Yoginder**Maill~an.** ] am employed as an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air Quality Planning Section in tIle Bureau of Air of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency"). I have been employed in this capacity since March 1992. Prior to my employment with the Agency] worked for various metal fabrication industries for nine yem·s. My educational background includes a Bachelor of Engineeling Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Bhopal University at Bhopal, India. As part of my regular duties in the Air Quality Planning Section, I have been involved with preparing emission estimates for varioLLS source categories Llsed in the development ofthe 1990 ozone season weekday emissions inventories; evaluating control technologies applicable to volatile orgm1ic material ("V OM") emissions sources in preparation of the State Implementation Plans ("SlPs") for the Chicago and S1. Louis ozone Ilonattaimnent areas ('NAAs"); and assisting in the development of regulations for the control ofVOM emissions from source categories included in the SIP. For the proposal currently before the Board, I was involved 

### in preparing the proposed amendments to correct the deficiencies in the Group IV reasonably available control technology ("RACT") regulations to satisfy U.S. EPA's requirements.

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011

Section 172 of the CJean Air Act**e~CAA'~)** requires that SIPs for nonatlainment areas, such as the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis Ni\.i\s in Illinois. must include requirements for RACT as it appiies to emissions sources. Section 1 82(b)(2)(A) o[the (AA further requires that SIPs be revised to include RACT for VOM emissions sources that are covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CT0") document issued by U.S. EPA after November 15, J 990, and before the area's date of attainment. The U.S. EPA defines RACT as "the lowest emission limitation that a paJiicular source is capable ofmeeting by the application of control technology tbat is reasonably available considering technologicaJ and economic feasibility." On October 7,2008, the U.S. EPA issued thefinaJ CTGs for COnSlL'11er and CommerciaJ Products, Group IV. In response to the Group IV CTGs, the Agency proposed amendments to 35 

### lJ1. Adm. Code Parts 21 1,218 a.TJd 219 (in rulemaking R I 0-20). On September 2, 2010, the 1I1inois Pollution ControJ Board ("Board") adopted these amendments. On July 29, 2010, the Agency submitted the adopted rules to the U.S. EPA for their approval to include them as amendments to lllinois' SIP. After reviewing the rules, the U.S. EPA informed the Agency that the revisions were insufficient and that U.S. EPA would not
approve them without additional amendments. Generally, the U.S. EPA identified the following issues with the ruJes: inadequate recordkeeping requirements for several product categories, insufticient VOM limitations, typographical errors, provisions requiring clariEcation, and failure
to implement certain recommendations set forth in the eTGs. The Agency conferred with the U.S. EPA extensively in an effort to resolve these issues. The U.S. EPA agreed that several of its suggested revisions were not necessary and atnrmed that the remaining revisions were mandatory in order to obtain SIP approvaL The U.S. EPA sent a letter, dated March 9,201 'j, to the Agency's Chief, Bureau of Air, listing the outstanding ddiciencies that must be addressed by

2

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011

the Agency (attr,ched [0 this testimony as Exhibit ;\). The proposal before the Board irnpiemcnL'; 

### these amendments, as weJl as additional amendm.cnts subsequently identified 

### by the**USEPA~** 

### proposes additional typographical corrections and c!arlfications. and 

### anlends certain pro 1 

### /isio!ls. The Agency believes that these amendments are technically feasible and economicaliy reasonable, and tbat this proposal ,,,iii not adversely impact the affected sources in Illinois. Adoption of these amendments by the Board is necessary in order to obtain tbe U.S. EPA's approval of Illinois' SIP.

" JUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL Pfl.0TECTION AGENCY 

### Electronic Filing -**Recei~~lerks** 

### Office, 

### April 14, 2011 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590



### MAR 15 2011 MAR 09 ZUil

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF; AR-18J Laurel 

### 1. Moack Chief Bureau of Air Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P,O, Box 19276 Springfield, 

# Ilr n ois 62794-9276 

## Ii "',1/ Dea:tf!:J;/ 

### M6 ack: 

# r;**M~n1e** Clean Air Act requires areas like the C;1icago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN iJrea CC!\icago area) and 51. Louis, MO-IL area (St Louis area), that have been designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

### and classified as moderate, to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) measures for sources ofVolatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Before the Illinois portions ofthe Chicago and St Louis nonattainment areas can be redesignated for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the VOC RACT requirements must be fulfilled. There are currently outstanding deficiencies with the VOC RACT rules that have been submitted to the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 29, 20 I 0, While both the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Region 5 staff have been discussing these deficiencies, we would once again stress the fact that the deficiencies that have been identifi,ed must be addressed, submitted and federally approved before the lllinois portions of the Chicago and St Louis areas can be redesignated for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We have attached the list of deficiencies that have been identified. Please note that these comments have been written with respect to the VOC RACT rules for the Chicago area, It is Our understanding that the VOC RACT rules for the S1. Louis area are identical to the rules for the Chicago area. Consequently, the same comments apply to the St Louis rules. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to call me Or Steve Rosenthal, of my staff, at (312) 886-6052.

Attachment
Rc:P.:y c I2dfRecyclable. Pnnted with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) EXHIBIT 

# A

### Electronic Filing
- Receiver!, Clerk's Office, April 14,2011 Attacnment Required Corrections to Volatile Organic Compound Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rules Submitted to U.S. EPA on July 29, 2010 by Illinois EPA Group II 218.187 Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations: 218.1 87(a)(1 )

- As an alternative to the 15 Ibs/day cutoff, 500 lb/month is an acceptable applicability cutoffprovided that monthly recordkeeping requirements for exempt sources are included. See comment for 281 (e)(1 )(A). Solvents from cleaning operations exempt from this rule need not be included when detennining ifthe 500 lb/month applicability cutoffhas been exceeded, 218.187(a)(2)(A)(iii)

- Please delete this exemption for screen reclamation activities. The exemptions in (a) were generally based on South Coast Rule 1171, which does not include screen reclamation activities as an exemption. The screen printing emission limit is sufficiently high to accommodate screen reclamation activities. 218.187 (a)(2)(B)(i) and (x)

- Either remove the exemptions for aerospace coating and shipbuilding and repair coating operations Dr provide adequate negative declarations for tl1ese source categories. 2] 8.l87(a)(2)C)(v) and (xiii)

- Daily records are required to establish whether the 1.5 gallons/day applicabiEty cutoff.g are exceeded. 2] 8.187(h)

- For sources that manufactnre coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins, alternative methods of compliance are acceptable. For all sources ofthis type, when using cleaning solvent for wipe

### c,lea~ing, sources must cover open containers used for the storage of spent or fresh organic compounds used for cleanup Dr coating, ink,'adhesive, or'resin removal and cover open containers used for the storage or disposal ofcloth or paper impregnated with organic compounds that are used for cleanup or coating, ink, adhesive, or resin removal. In addition, this type of source would also be required to choose from one of the following metl10ds of compliance:

l) A limit of 1.67 ]b/ga] for the cleaning of ink application equipment used in the manufacturing of coatings, inks, adhesives, Dr resins; 2) 111e composite vapor pressure of each as-used cleaning solution used does not exceed 8.0 mmHg measured at 20° C; 3) Installation and operation of an afterburner Or carbon adsorber that reduces YOM emissions by at least 80 percent overall and has a 90 percent efficiency; 4) Compliance with the following work practices: a) equipment being cleaned is maintained leak-free; b) YOM-containing cleaning materials are drained from the cleaned equipment upon completion of cleaning; c) YOM-containing cleaning materials, including wa.,'ie solvent, are not stored or disposed of in such a matter that

1

### Electronic Filing
- Received, Clerk's Office, April 14, 2011 will cause or allow evaporation into the atmosphere; and d) YOM-containing cleaning materials are stored in closed containers; and, 5) Use solvents that do not comply with options I) or 2), above, provided that all of the following requirements are met: a) No more than 60 gallons of fresh solvent is used per calendar month (solvent that is reused or recycled for further use in equipment cleaning or in the manufacture of coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins would not be included in this limit); 0) Solvents, including cleanup solvents are collected and stored in closed containers; and, d) records are kept ofihe name, identification and volume of each cleaning solution as applied in each cleaning operation; the volume of each fresh cleaning solvent used for cleaning coating, ink, adhesive, or resin manufacturing equipment; and the volume ofcleaning solvent recovered for either offsite or onsite reuse or recycling for further use in the cleaning of coating, ink, adhesive, or resin manufacturing equipment 218.187 (c)(l )(A)

- There is inadequate recordkeeping for exempt sources. Specific recordkeeping requirements must be listed. For example, ifthe 500 Ibs/month cutoff is' used, at a minimum, records would include the following information for each month for each cleaning operation: the nanle and identification of each cleaning solution 'as applied in each cleaning operation; the YOM content of each cleaning solution as applied in each cleaning operation; the mass ofVOM per volume of each cleaning solution used, as applied; and the total monthly YOM emissions from cleaning operations at the facility. 218.187 (g)(2)(B)

- It must be made clear that in the event of any inconsistency between '3 Method 24 test and the manufacturer's specifications, the Method 24 test takes precedence.



### 218.204 Flat Wood Paneling (and associated sections) 211 Definitions

- There are no definitions ofhardwood plywood, natural finish hardwood plywood panel, panel, printed interior panel, thin particleboard, and tileboard. These definitions are contained in model VOC rules and should be inclnded. 211.2355 "Flat Wood Paneling" definition

- Delete the comma between hardwood and plywood at the end ofthe definition. 218.1 05(e)(2)

- This section needs to be revised to include a reference to 218.207(m) for 218.1 05(e)(2) to apply. 218.207(b)(2)(B) It needs to be made clear that 

## "s" is equal to the limit in 2l8.204(p)(2), and not calculated according to section 218.206, as required by 218.207(b)(2)(B). 218.207(b)(2)(C)

- The last sentence in this subsection should be changed from, "Ifthe coating line is complying with

... " to, "If the coating line is subject to
.... "

2

### Electronic Filinq - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011 218.211 (c)(1 )(F), (c )(2)(G), (d)(D(H), and (d)(2)(G)

- It should be made clear that records must be kept "for each coating." 218.217( d)

- Add "Convey any coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes" to the list of work practice standards.

218.401 Flexible Packaging (and associated sections) 21 8.401 (b)(3) (A) and (B)
- The tenns 

### Wi in (A) and 

### L; in (B) should be in units ofkg (lb). 218A02(a)(2)

- Applicability is based on 25 tons/year potential to emit (which considers the effect of controls). However, CTG applicability for each line is based on 25 tons/year emissions before controls, which is more stringent. This section seems to apply to 25 tons/year potential to emit combined emissions from all lines (however this is not explicit). The 25 tons/year potential to emit applicability would be acceptable ifth.e state makes it explicit in the nile that this is combined emissions from al1lines. 218.404(b)(l )(B)

- Calculations are required which demonstrate iliat the combined potential to emit of all flexographic and rotogravure printing lines at the source never equals or exceeds 25 tons ofVOM per year. 218A04(b )(2)

- The new compliance date needs to be made clear for flexographic or rotogravure printing lines that print flexible packaging or that print flexible packaging and nonflexible packaging on the same line. 218 A04(b )(3)

- Exempt sources should also be required to notify the Agency of any record showing that the combined potential to emit ofal! flexographic and rotogravure printing lines at the source equals or exceeds 25 tons of YOM in any calendar year. 218A04(d)(l )(D)
- This subsection should also include the method to calculate the weight of each coating or ink. 218.404(d)(2)(B)

- This subsection should also require records be kept of the weight of each coating or ink. 218A04(f)(I)(B)

- TI,e records to document that emissions never equal or exceed 151bs VOC/day must be specified so that there is no ambiguity as to their adequacy. At a minimum, these would include the following information each day for each subject printing line: ilie name and identification number of each coating, ink and cleaning solvent as applied each day on each printing line; the YOM content of each coaring and ink (measured in weight ofVOM per volume of coating or ink, or in weight ofVOM per weight of coating or ink) as applied each day on each printing line, and the volume or weight of each coating or ink as applicable; the weight ofVOM per volume ofeach cleaning solvent and the volume ofeach cleaning solvent used each day on each printing line; and the total daily emissions ofVOM from eachflexographic and rotogravure

3

### Electronic Filing
- Received, Clerk's Office, April 14, 2011 printing line (including solvents used for cleanup operations associated with. such lines) and the sum of daily emissions from alJ such lines. 218.405 Lithographic Printing (and associated sections) 218.409(a)

- Testing should be required a specified time after compliance is required, e.g. 3-6 months. 218.411(b)(l) (F)

- This section should be revised to include the speciJlc records required to determine whether the 46 gallons/month and 450 pounds/month are exceeded. At a minimum, these records must include: the name, identification number, and YOM content of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month, the volume of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month fOr each sheetfed and nonheatset web offset lithographic printing operation, and the weight of each ink, cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month for each heatset web offset lithographic printing operation.

. 218.4 I I (g)(2)(A)(ii)

- More specific recordkeeping requirements are needed. Revise language to read, "The name, identification, and volume of all cleaning materials used per calendar month on lithographic printing lines atthe source that do not comply

.... "

. 218.412 Letterpress Printing Lines (and associated sections) 218.415(a)

- Testing should be required a specified time after compliance is 'required, e.g. 3-6 months. 218.417(b)(3) (A)

- This section should be revised to include the specific records required to determine whether the 46 gallons/month and 450 pounds/month are exceeded. At a minimum, these records must include: the name, identification number, and VOM content of each Cleaning solvent and ink used per calendar month, the volume of each cleaning solvent used per calendar month for each sheeded and nonheatset web letterpress printing operation, and the weight ofeach cleaning solvent and ink used per calendar month for each heatset web letterpress printing operation. 218.417(c)

- The introductory language should be revised to more clearly state 

### that the recordkeeping requirements in (c)(1) or (c)(2) must apply to any source claiming to be exempt from and below the applicability cutoffs in 218.412(a)(l) andlor (a)(2).
Group [V
218.204(a) Automobile or Light Duty Truck Coating

4

### ,. EleQtrori.i<;: Filing Received, 

### Glerk's Office, 

### April 

# 1.1, 2011 2l8.204la)(2)(E)(1l)

- TlllS subsectJOn should be revIsed to define "occulTence as the application of the combination of coatings that constitute a final repair coat for a single automobile or light-duty truck. it should be made clear that Section 281.205 does not apply. 218.204( q) Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts and Products 21 8 .204( q)( 1) (A)(iii)

- There is no apparent basis for a clear coating limit of4.3 lbs/gal. This limit should be deleted. 218.204(q)(l)(H)

- The 0.66 kg/1limit for heat-resistant coatings should be removed. 218.204(q)(I)(I)· This category was previously subject to the 3.5lbs/gaJ general limit and going from 3.5 to 6.2 is a relaxation. This limit should be 3.5 Ibs/gal. 218.204(q)(l )(Z)
- 

### 1111s 4.3 Ibs/gallimit should be deleted in favor ofthe 4.2 

### Ibs/gal CTG limit in 218.204(q)(l)(Y). 218.204(q)(I)(AA)

- There is no apparent basis for special limits for marine engine coatings. The extreme performance coatings category is sufficient to address marine engine coatings. This subsection should be deleted. 218 .204(q)(3 )(E)
- There is no apparent basis forthe**rela~ed** specialty coating limit for texture basecoats under subsection (i); gloss reducers and texture topcoats under (iii), 

### and the limits under subsections (ii), (iv), and (v). These relaxed limits should be deleted. 218.204(g)(3)(F)

- The 1.15 factor should be multiplied by the limits in (q)(3)(A) through (g)(3)(C) not (g)(3)(E). 218.204( q)(4)(A) -It is acceptable to set a limit of 2.91bs/gal for primers. 2l8.204(g)(4)(1)

- There is no apparent basis for the relaxed specialty coating limits. his subsection should be removed.

218.207(b)(2)(C)

- The last sentence in this subsection should be changed from, 

### "If the coating line is complying with

... " to, "Ifthe coating 

### line is subject to
.... "

218.211 Recordkeeping and Reporting 218.21 1 (c)(J)(H)

- This subsection should be revised to read as follows, "For coatings subject to the limitations of Section 218.204(a)(2)(E), the weight ofVOM per volume and volume of each coating used in the final repair coat operation, and the weight of YOM per volume ofthe fInal repair coat as applied, calculated on an OCCUlTence weighted average 

### basis. l
'
5

### Electronic 

### Filing
- Received, Clerk's Office, April 14,2011

218.211 (c )(2)(1)

- This subsection should be revised to read as follows, "For coatings subject to the limitations of Section 218.204(a)(2)(E), the weight ofVOM per volnme and volume of each coating used in the final repair coat operation, the weight ofVOM per volume of the final repair coat as applied, calculated on an occurrence weighted average basis, and certified product data sheets for each coating."
218.211(£)(2)

- This section should reference the revised auto protocol.

. 218.211G)

- The pleasure craft recordkeeping should reference 218.207 (0), not (m). 218.211 G)(2)(A)

- Tbe records should include the coating category for each coating.



### 218.900 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
218.90 I (b)

- The emission limits should be in units of mass of YOM per volume of adhesive or adhesive primer, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied. 218.90 J(c )(1) and (c)(2)

- Mj should be Vj, the volunle (gallons) of each adhesive, as applied. 218.901(c)(2)

- LimitwA should be the allowable weighted average rather than the mass weighted average. 218.901(d)(2) & (3)

- 'the altematives specified in (d)(2) and (d)(3) are not precisely defined and should t'terefore be submitted to and approved by EPA as a 

### SIP revision. 218.902(a)

- Testing should be required within a specific time interval after compliance is required, e.g. 

### 3-6 months. 218.903

- The requirement for a CEM mllst be added when a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance. Listing temperature monitoring devices alone erroneously implies that temperature monitoring is appropriate for a carbon adsorber and/or that a CEM is not needed for a carbon adsorber. 218.904(d)(2)

- Daily records must 

### be kept of the volume of each adhesive as applied each day 

### by each subject adhesive application operation.



### Section 218.890 Fiberglass 

### Boat manufacturing 218.891(a)

- The equation for "Weighted Average Monomer VOM Content" should be deleted. The subsection should also be revised to read as follows, beginning with the last sentence under (a): "The excess non-monomer VOM shall be calculated in accordance with the equation below:

6

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011 Excess Non-Monomer YOM Non-monomer YOM content

- 5 percent, by weight 218.89 I (c)(2)

- It should be made clear that the monomer YOM emissions calculated using Equation 3 may not exceed the monomer YOM limit calculated nsing Equation 2. 2 I 8.891 (c)(4)

- Language should be added to clarify that the rom1Ulas calculate monomer YOM emission rates in tenus of kg of monomer YOM per,Mg of resin or gel coat applied. Also, YOM percent should be defined as the monomer YOM content as supplied, expressed as a weight percent value between 0 and 100 percent 218.891(d)(1)

- An alternative plan must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 218.891 (e)

- After the sentence begimnng, "If complying pursuant to snbsection (b)

... ," the following sentence should be added, "If complying pursuant to subsection (c), the value ofPVF calculated using Equation 5, shall be used for the value OfPVi in Equation 4, as set fort'! in subsection (c)(3) ofthis Section." 218.891(e)(3)

- 'The tenn PV u should be defined as "TIle monomer YOM emission rate for the unfilled resin, before filler is added, expressed in kg monomer YOM per Mg, as calculated using the fonnulas in Section 218.891(c)(4) ofthis Subpart. 21 8. 892(a)

- Testing should be required within a specific tune interval after compliance is required, e.g. 3-6 months. 218.892(c)(5)

- The requirement for a CEM must be added when a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance. Listing temperature monitoring d.evices alone erroneously implies that temperature monitoring is appropriate for a carbon adsorber and/or that a CEM is not needed for a carbon adsorber. 218.894(a)

- To be enforceable, the following monthly records should be kept: (i) total pounds of all resins and gel coats used per calendar month; (ii) total gallons of all cleanup materials used per calendar month; (iii) YOM content of each resin, gcl coat, and cleanup material used per calendar month; and (iv) total YOM emissions,in pounds, for all resins, gel coats, and cleanup material employed per calendar month, before tbe application of control systems and devices. 218.894(c)(2)(B)

- Monthly records ofthe mass of each open molding resin or gel coat, as applied, are required to establish the weighted average (not daily weighted average) YOM content. 218.894(g)(3)(D)

- Language should be revised for clarification to read, "The total amount of each clearing solvent, including water, used to prepare the as-used cleaning solution

... "

7

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011**BEFOJ~E** 

### THE iLLINOiS POLLUTJON CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTSR OF: ) ) REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) OROANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROlvl ) GROUP Il AND GROUP IV CONSUMEH & ) COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, ) 218,and2!9 ) RJ 1-23 (Rulemaking-Air)



### CERTIFICATE OF SERvlCE 

### 1, the undersigned, an attorney, state thai 

### I have served electronically the attached TESTIMONY OF DA VlD BLOOMBERQ and II;;,S.IIl',ilONY OF YOG INDER MAHAJAN upon the foliowing person: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk IJJinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 Wesi Randolph, Suite 11- 500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 and electronically to the following persons: 

### SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.

ILLINOIS Ei'\!VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY:_~~ Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant COlUlsel**Di,,~sion** of Legal Counsel

DATED: April 14,2011 102! N. Grand Ave. Ea$t P.O. Box 19276 Springfield. II.. 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 14, 2011

Service List RI i-B
Timothy J. 

### Fox Hearing Ofilcer Illinois PoiIution ConlToj Board 100 W. Randolph St, Suite I 1-500 Chicago, 1L 6060 1**.foxti~ipch_staie<** 

### rl. us Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel Jllinois Department ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, J10 62702- j 271 vlrgiJ1 ia. vapg({ilj II inois.gov Matthew Dlil1n, Chief Division 0 f Environmental Enforcement Office of the Attorney General 100 West Randolph St., Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601**111dtum{ra~atg.state.ii.** us Alec M. Davis General Counsel Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E, Adams St. Springfield, IL 6270! 

### adavis(1)ierg,orgApril 15 , 2011 Clerk's Office Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11

-500 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, IL 60601 RE: Docket R11

-23 Proposed Amendments to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 211, 218, and 219 To Whom It May Concern : On behalf of the affected members of Illinois’ graphic arts community, the Printing Industry of Illinois/Indiana Association (PII) and the Specialty Graphic Imaging Association (SGIA) thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219

. Both PII and SGIA appreciate the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (IEPA) willingness to work with the printing industry in developing these amendments regarding the application of reasonably ava il able control technology (RACT). In reviewing the proposed amendments to 35 IAC 211, 218, 219, PII is concerned about the impact that they will have on our members. As background, P II represents the printing and publishing industry (SIC 2700 and various N AI CS 323 codes) in Illinois and Indiana. As reported in the 2010 Print Market Atlas, the value of goods shipped for the industry in Illinois is approximately $9.3b illion. Approximately 1,915 companies employing about 60,485 workers are engaged in offset l ithographic printing in Illinois

. PII represents 254 of these firms. Seventy

-four percent of Illinois printers employ less than 20 employees. Printing is a prime example of small businesses involved in manufacturing. Following are our comments and requested changes related to the Group II CTG Rules Revisions. Please contact Gary Jones, Printing Industries of America’s Assistant Vice President of Environmental , Health, and Safety Affairs, at 412

-259

- 1794 (gjones@printing.org ) or Marci Kinter, Vice President – Government and Business Information with the SGIA at 703

-359

- 1313 ( marcik@siga.org ) with any questions you may have regarding these comme nts

. We look forward to working with you toward the mutual benefit of the Bureau of Air and Illinois’ graphic arts firms. Sincerely,

Joanne Rock President and CEO

Vice President – Government & Business Information Specialty Graphic Imaging Associatio nCOMMENTS RE: Docket R11

-23 Proposed Amendments to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 211, 218, and 219 PII and SGIA requests that IEPA consider the comments listed below as it moves forward with its rulemaking. PII and SGIA’ s suggested changes to the proposed language are shown with insertions italicized and underlined and deletions indicated with a strikethrough

. Note that all comments and suggested changes to Section 218 apply as well to the corresponding requirements in Section 219. Subpart E: Solvent C leaning Section 218.187(a) Applicability 1. The rule does not specifically address substrate cleaning for screen printing. Sections 218.187(a)(2)(A)(iv) and (a)(2)(C)(xvi) include exemptions for pre

- press cleaning operations including activities associated with several types of printing, such as “film processors, color scanners, plate processors, film cleaning, and plate cleaning” and digital printing . H owever there are no exemptions for substrate cleaning for screen printing operations. Substrate cleaning is necessary to insure the ink will properly adhere to the surface of the substrate, which frequently has residue on the surface of the as- received that must be removed prior to printing . Although 218.187(b)(1)(A) does refer to "Product cleaning during ma nufacturing process or surface preparation for coating, adhesive, or ink application", the specific categories referenced are electrical and electronic components and pharmaceutical and medical devices - not screen printing substrates. Therefore, we request that the following exemption be added to Section 218.187 (a )(2 )(A) , as (a )(2 )(A)(v): v) Cleaning of substrates prior to screen printing 2. Section 218.187 (a)(2)(C)(xiv) of this rule exempts cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates from sections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of this rule. As these cleaning operations take place at lithographic printing operations , they are already exempt from sections (b), (c), (f), and (g) as well as sections (d) and (e), since (a)(2)(B)(ii) exempts li thographic printing from sections (b) through (g). Therefore, section (a)(2)(C)(xiv) should be deleted to avoid confusion regarding the applicability of Sections 218.187(d) and (e) to cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates

. 3.S ection 218.187 (a)(2)( C ) of this rule exempts numerous cleaning operations from sections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of th e rule , but not section (e)

. For sources identified in Section (a)(2)(C) , the only applicable requirement in section (e), is (e)(2 ) (vii), wh ich requires a description of each cleaning operation and listing of emission units exempt due to section (a)(2). As this information does not limit or reduce emissions in any way, it creates an unnecessary recordkeeping burden for exempt sources and requires both exempt sources and the department to dedicate time to a task that does not improve air quality. Therefore, we request that Section 218.187(a)(2)(C) be revised as follows to indicate that the listed cleaning operati ons are completely exempt from Section 218.187 (e) : C) The following cleaning operations shall be exempt from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), and (g) of this Section: As an alternative, Section 218.187 (a)(2)(C) could be removed and combined with Section 218.187 (a)(2)(B)

.4. PII supports the IEPA in the inclusion of Section 218.187(e) as an exempt section for the sources listed in 218.187(a)(2)(A) and (B). As these operations are exempt from the remainder of the rule, there is no need for facilities to submit a notification to the IEPA of their exemption, as it would be an economic and administrative burden to both the IEPA and exempt facilities. PII thanks the IEPA for proposing this change. As noted above, PII believes the operations included in Section 218.187(a)(2)(C) should also be included in this exemption category. Section 218. 187(e) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements The rule does not include a provision for retention of cleaning solvent in shop towels. The recordkeeping section of the lithographic rule , Section 218.411 (b)(1)(B)(iv) , provides for 50 percent retention of cleaning sol utions used with shop towels kept in closed containers that have a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or less at 20 oC (68 o F)

. T he same VOM retention factor should be included in this rule . While the 2006 Lithographic and Letterpress CTG recommended this retention factor, the basis for the retention factor i s due to cleaning solutions having a vapor pressure below 10 mm Hg at 20 oC (68 o F) , which is universally applicable to all cleaning solvents used with shop towels

. The question of applicability of this retention factor for non

- lithographic processes has been answered by the EPA in the June, 2007 Technica l Support Document for Title V Permitting of Printing Facilities

. Page 60 of the 2 007 TSD states: “Yes, non

- lithographic processes are eligible for use of a retention factor to estimate emissions from manual cleaning activities when using low vapor pressure cleaning solvents with shop towels, in accordance with the ACT document for lithographic printing (EPA, 1994). To estimate emissions from cleaning activities, consideration should be given not only to the quantities and VOC content of materials consumed, but also to other factors that characterize the fate of the VOC in the cleaning solvent. For example, for manual cleaning with low vapor pressure cleaning materials, it may be assumed when estimating emissions, that 50 percent of the VOC applied remains in the shop towel after use provided that the cleaning materials and used shop towels are kept in closed containers.” Page 1 9 of the 2006 Lithographic and Letterpress CTG states: “B. Retention of Low VOM Composite Vapor Pressure Cleaning Materials in Shop Towels We recommend using a 50 percent VOM retention factor for low VOM composi te vapor pressure cleaning materials in shop towels where (1) VOM composite vapor pressure of the cleaning material is less than 10 mm Hg at 20 oC, and (2) cleaning materials and used shop towels are kept in closed containers.” For the above reasons, we request that a 50 percent retention factor for cleaning solvents with a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or less, used with shop towels kept in closed containers be added to Section 218.187(e)(10) as follows: 10) All emission calculations required by this subsection (e) shall use an emission adjustment factor of 0.50 in calculating emissions from used shop towels if the VOM composite vapor pressure of each associated cleaning solution is less than 10 mmHg measured at 20 **°** C (68 **°** F) and the shop towels are kept in closed containers. For cleaning solutions with VOM composite vapor pressures of equal to or greater than 10 mmHg measured at 20 **°** C (68 **°** F) and for shop towels that are not kept in closed containers, no emission adjustment factor is used. Subpart H: Printing and Publishing Section 218.409 Testing for Lithographic PrintingThe proposed change made to the testing requirements for oxidizers used on heatset web offset presses requires oxidizers to be tested by January 1, 2012, unless they were tested since Janua ry 1, 2010. PII believes this requirement needs to be revised

. These requirements pose an undue administrative and economic testing burden on lithographic printing facilities for several reasons:

**•**P rinters with heatset presses subject to the rule have already been required to obtain operating permits, and those permits only require stack testing at the time of installation or start
- up of a control device. These permits do not establish periodic stack testing as a monitoring condition, instead rely on an oxidizer’s operating temperature to gauge if the control device is operating within permitted emission control limits. Requiring additional testing in this scenario is not justified and represents a significant cost to printers.

**•**Stack testing for complian ce demonstration purposes can cost between $10,000 to $15,000 and it is economically infeasible to conduct duplicate stack tests especially when temperature monitoring data indicates such tests are unnecessary.

**•** USEPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, the basis for this regulatory change, contains no such requirement. The Illinois EPA’s proposal to require all facilities to perform stack testing goes far beyond USEPA’s recommendation. Section 218.409(a) need s to be revised to allow the results from the most recent stack test, if it was performed and approved using an acceptable testing protocol, to serve as the basis for d emonstrating compliance with the proposed rule. This recommendation is consi stent with the USEPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) for Title V Permitting of Printing Operations (www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memorand a/tsd.pdf), which states in Table D
- 1 List of Monitoring Protocols on page D

-4: Protocol Type Source Key Parameters 1 Thermal oxidizer Press, coater, laminator 1. Combustion chamber temperature 2. Inspections 3. Performance testing once every 5 years 4. Assessment of valve leaking (regenerative units only) 2 Catalytic oxidizer Press, coater, laminator 1. Catalyst bed inlet temperature 2. Annual assessment of catalyst activity 3. Inspections 4. Performance testing once every 5 years 5. Assessment of valve leaking (regen erative units only) Also, since the effective date of compliance with the proposed rule for new presses is the installation date of the new press, the proposed rule needs to be revised to provide 180 days to demonstrate compliance with the rule’s add

-on control requirements. This additional time will afford owners and operators of new subject presses the time to fully gauge and establish the typical operating conditions referenced in proposed paragraph 218.409 (b )( 5 ) under which the compliance testing sho uld occur. Therefore, we request the following changes to Section 218.409(a): Testing to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 of this Subpart shall be conducted by January 1, 2012, unless such prior testing has beenconducted within the two years immediately preceding January 1, 2012. demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 has been conducted in accordance with an existing operating permit

. Thereafter, testing shall be conducted by the owner or operator within 90 180 days after a request by the Agency, or as otherwise specified in this Subpart. Such testing shall be conducted at the expense of the owner or operator and the owner or operator shall notify the Agency in writing 30 days in advance of conducting such testing to allow the Agency to be present during such testing. Section 218.411(b)(1)(F) The change proposed to this section creates a record keeping burden that contradicts the purpose of allowing facilities to determine exemption based on m aterial use thresholds. The material use system is based on maintaining records of the amount (weight / volume) of materials used and comparing with the thresholds established. However, requiring additional information, such as the name, identification number and VOM content of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution creates a significant recordkeeping burden while providing no additional benefit. If a facility exceeds the material use threshold and calculation are required to demonstrate exemption (per (b)(1)(C)), then this information is necessary for calculations, as outlined in (b)(1)(B). Including this additional information as required recordkeeping for facilities choosing to meet the requirements of (b)(1)(C)(i) or (b)(1)(C)(ii) is not necessary. Therefore, we request the following changes to Section 218.411(b)(1)(F): For sources complying with subsection (b)(1)(C) of this Section, comply with the following: i) Maintain material use records showing that the source uses less than the amount of mate rial specified in subsections (b)(1)(C)(i) and (b)(1)(C)(ii) during each calendar month, or, if the source exceeds the material use limitations, records showing that the source exceeded the limitations but did not emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lbs/day) or more of VO M, and provide such records to the Agency upon request. On and after January 1, 2012, such records shall include the name, identification number, and VOM content of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month, the volume of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month for each sheetfed and nonheatset web offset lithographic printing operation, and the weight of each cleaning solvent, ink, and fountain solution additive used per calendar month for each heatset web offset lithographic printing operation;

~~ End of comments ~~

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS 

### POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) REASONABLY AVAIL"'BLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL ADM. CODE 211, ) 218, and 219 ) 

### NOTICE To: John TIlerriault, Assistant Clerk IlLinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

### SEE 

### ATTACHED SERVICE LIST RII-23 (Rulemaking-Air)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 1 have today :filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control B081'd the MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

### /,

. By: C7.ig.h:h 

## 1/f';/4/p,

# ~1 Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division ofLegat Counsel DATED: ApriJ25,2011 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### RII-23 (RuJemaking-Air) 

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) 

### REASONABLY AVAILABLECON'TIWL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE2!1, ) 218,and219 ) MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL The Proponent, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), by its attorney, and pursuant to 35 IlL Adm. Code 101.500 and 102.402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") anlend Parts 211, 218, and 219 ofthis rulemaking proposal. In 

### support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows: L On March 7, 2011, the Illinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to amend 35 IlL Adm. Code Parts 211, 218, and 219 to control the emissions ofvoJatile organic materials ("VOM") from Group II and Group IV Conslilller and Commercial Product categories. The ll1inois EPA proposes the following amendments to its proposaL 2. In response to a request from an industry representative, the lllinois EPA recommends amending Section 218/219.187(b)(2) to add "VOM" to a reference to composite vapor prcssure, which was mistakenly omitted from the lllinois EPA's original proposal: Section 218/219.187 Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations

b) Material and Control Requirements. No owner or operator of a source subject to this Section, other than manufacturers of coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins, shall perform any cleaning operation subject to this Section unless the owner or operator meets the requirements in subsection (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). No owner or operator of a source that manufactures coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins shall perforol any cleaning operation subject to tbis Section unless the owner or

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011
operator meets the requirements in at least one of the following subsections: (b)(I), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), or (b)(S):

2) The YOM composite vapor pressure of each as-used cleaning solution used does not exceed 8.0 mmHg measured at 20 c

## e (68"F); 3. In response to a comment by an industry representative, the lllinois EPA recommends amending Section 

### 2I 8/2 

### I 9.409(a) to specify that lithographic printing lines that conducted testing to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in Section 218/219.407 on or after May 9, 1995, and that satisfy certain other requirements, are not required to retest by January I, 2012. 'DIe Illinois EPA also recommends specifying that sources that conducted testing prior to May 9, 1995, are also not required to retest if such sources suhmit specified information to the Illinois EPA: Section 218.409 Testing for Lithographic Printing a) Testing to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 of tIns Subpart shall be conducted by January 1,2012, unless such testing was conducted on or after May 9, 1995, the test was conducted pursuant to a test method approved by USEPA, the current (jperating conditions and operating capacity ofthe press are consistent with the operation ofthe press during such testing. and the test results were submitted to the Agencyflas.-Seen oondueted within the twe years iffifflediately preoeding January 1, 20 J2, 

### If an owner or operator of a printing line perfOlmed such testing prior to May 9, 1995. the owner or operator shall either retest pursuant to tms Section, or submit to the Illinois EP A all informatIollllecessary to demonstrate that the prior testing was conducted pursuant to a test method approved bv the USEPA, and that the cun-ent operating conditionS and operating capacity of the press are consistent with the operation of the press during prior testing. Thereafter, testing shaH he conducted by the owner or operator within 90 days after a request by the Agency, or as othenvise specified in this Subpart, Such testing shall be conducted at the expense of the owner or operator and the owner or operator shalt notify the Agency in writing 30 days in advance of conducting such testing to allow the Agency to be present during such testing. Section 219.409 Testing for Lithographic Printing a) Testing to demOnstrate compliance ""ith the requirements of Section 2 I 9.407 of


### 2

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011

this Subpart shall bc conducted by January 1, 2012, unkss such testing was conducted on or after May 9, 1995, the test was conducted pursuant to a test method approved by USEPA, the curreptoperating conditions anQ,QR"I"ting capacity of the press are consistent with the operation of the press during such testing, and the test results were submitted to the Agencvhas be"''' condaetcd within the two years immediately preceding Jm:uary 1, 

### 20',2. 

### If an owner or operator of a printing line performed such testingJ2rior to May 9,1995, the owner or operator shall either retest pursuant to this Section. or submit to the Illinois EPA all information necessary to demonstrate that the prior testing was conducted pursuant to a test method approved bv the USEP 

### A. and that the cun-ent operating conditionS and operating caDacity of the press are consistent with the operati.on of the press during prior testing, TI1ereafter, testing shall be conducted by the owner or operator within 90 days after a request by the Agency, or as otherwise specified in this Subpal1. Such testing shall be conducted at the expense of the owner or operator and the owner or operator shaH notify the Agency in writing 30 days in advance of conducting such testing to aJlow the Agency to be present during such testing.

The Printing Industry of Illinoisllndiana Association ("PH") and the SpeciaJty Graphic Imaging Association ("SGIA") recently submitted comments to the Board, aJso seeking changes
to this subsection (April 15, 2011, Comments of PIl/SGIA). PIIISGlA suggests that Section 218/219A09(a) be revised to eliminate retesting requirements completely for printing lines that have previously tested "in accordance with an existing operating penllit." TIle United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), however, has advised that the applicahle "cut-off date" for retesting requirements is May 9, 1995, the original effective date for the requirements in Section 218/219.407, The USEPA advised that other requirements must be met as well to

ensure thalprior tests still accurately reflect the current operation ofthe press. As the language proposed by the Agency above is required by USEPA, and has been approved by USEP A, the Agency recommends against PlI!SGIA' s proposed revision, Pll/SGlA also suggests increasing the amount of time sources are given to conduct a test after a request by the Agency or after startup of a new press/controJ device--from 90 days to 180 days. The Agency opposes this revision. Ninety days is the cun-ent requirement for lithographic
3

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011
printers, and has been the requirement for many years. PlJISGlA has not demonstrated that an additional 90 days (a total of six months) is now needed to prepare for a test. 4. In Section 218.90 I (c )(2) of the Illinois EP 1\'s original rulemaking proposal, the Illinois EPA recommended changing "Min to "Vi" in the equation and changing the definition of "Vi" to reference only units of volume, not units of mass. In the version ofthe proposed rulemaking that appeared with the Notice of Proposed Amendments in the Illinois Register ("First Notice version"), however, the units of volume were deleted in the definition of "Vi" instead ofthe units ofmass. (35 Ill. Reg. 4887,5101). Assuming that this was an unintentional transcriptional error, the minois EPA recomnlends that it be corrected as follows: Section 2l8.90] Emission Limitations and Control Requirements (c) (2) The volume of each adhesive, as applied, in units of 

### 1*5· (gillHl); 5. In Section 2l9.204(q)(3)(E)(i) ofthe Illinois EPA's original rulemakingproposal, the Illinois EPA proposed deleting the specialty coating category and limit for textnre basecoats in
response to a comment by the USEP A, in which USEPA indicated that there was not an adequate basis for the limit and that it should be deleted. The textnre basecoat category and limit, however, still appear in the First Notice version of the proposal. (35 

### Ill. Reg. 4887,5185). In light ofUS EPA's required change, the Illinois EPA recommends the following revision: Section 219.204 Emission Limitations (q) 3) Plastic Parts and Products AutomotivelTransportation E) Specialty

4

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 

### 2011

i) Vacuum metallizing 0.66 basecoats,**t;~;;ture** easeceats (5.5) 2.62 (21.8)
6, In resp6nse to a comment D'01J1 an industry representative, the Illinois EPA. recommend.s amending the definition of"extTeme high gloss coating" (which was not originally part of this ruJemaking proposal) as folIows: Section 21 1.2200 Extreme High-Gloss Coating "Extreme high-gloss coating" means: For purposes of35 Ill. Adm, Code 218.204(q)(I) regarding metal parts and products coatings, a coating that, when tested by ASTM D 523-80, incQrporated by reference in Section 211.1 OJ ofthis Part, shows a reflectance of 75 or more on a 60° meter; For purposes of35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft coatings, any coating that achieves greater than 90ai: least 95 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested using ASTM D 523-89, incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 of this Part.

Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY:~~ Dana Vettcrhof, Assistant Counsel Division ofLegai Counsel

DATED: Apli125, 20] 1 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Splingfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

5R] ] -23 (RuJemaking-Air) 

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011
BEFORE 

### THE ILLINOIS 

### POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) GROUP 

## n AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, ) 218,and219 ) 

### CERTIFICATE OF 

### SERVICE I, the undersigned, 811 attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL upon the following person: John 111erriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control B081'd James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601- 3218 and electronically to the following persons: 

### SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:cm-"14L

# ~~ Dana VetterJ1(}fre'i" Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: April 25, 2011 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (2! 7) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 25, 2011
Service List Rll-B
Timothy J. Fox Hearing Oftlcer rllinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 1 

### ! -500 Chicago, IL 6060 I f{)xt(tv,ipeb.state .iI. us Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel I1Jinois Department of Natural Resources One Naturai Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702-1271 

### virginia·Yilllgu.uiJl.inois,gov Matthew Dunn, Chief 

### Division of Environluental Enforcen1ent Ofiice of the Attorney General 100 West Randolph St., Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601 mdurtn(iiiatg.state.iLus Alec M. Davis General Counsel Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62701 

### adavis(mierg.org James Sell American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 

### i se!l:IV,paint. Ofl!

### Page 1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL 

## ) R11-23 TECHNOLOGIES (PACT) FOR VOLATILE 

## ) (Rulemaking ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM 

## ) GROUP II AND 

### GROUP IV CONSUMER 

## ) CSOFF1Cr AND 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: 

## ) 

## APR 272 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

## ) ADM. CODE 211, 218 AND 

### 219 

## ) 

# pTATEoFIwNo,s 0 Ut(O 

### Contr
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS held in the above entitled cause before Hearing Officer Tim Fox, called by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, taken by Steven Brickey, CSR, for the State of Illinois, 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the 27th day of April, 2011, commencing at the hour of 9:15 a.m.

L.A. COURT REPORTERS, LLC. (312) 419-9292Page 2 

### APPEARANCE S MR. TIM FOX, Hearing Officer MR. ANAND RAO, 

### MS. CARRIE ZALEWSKI MS. ANDREA 

### MOORE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 BY: MS. DANA VETTERHOFFER MR. DAVID E. BLOOMBERG MR. YOGINDER MAHAJAN 

### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois (217) 522-5512 BY: MR. ALEC M. DAVIS ALSO PRESENT: MR. PAUL BURGESS MS. STEPHANIE WILICERSON
REPORTED BY: Steven J. Brickey, CSR CSR License No. 084-004675

L.A. COURT REPORTERS, LLC. (312) 419-9292

### May 6, 2011 Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph St., Suite 11

-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Dear Board Members: I am forwarding the ACA comments on the Proposed Pleasure Craft regulation aspect of the so

-called Group IV CTGs for Miscell aneous Metal and Plastic Parts. We submitted similar comments on this issue when it was first considered by the Board and provided testimony as well. As set out in our petition paper, some of the VOC limits for certain coatings categories in the Proposed Pleasure Craft CTG do not represent RACT. We suggest and justify revised limits for these coatings categories that truly represent RACT for them. We would greatly appreciate your reconsideration of the matter. We also have attached USEPA's unprecedented letter in response to our concerns in which it states that the states in determining whether to adopt this aspect of the CTG are free to make up their own minds. This is an unprecedented departure from the traditional USEPA position that CTGs are presumptively RACT. The reason for this departure stems from USEPA’s recognition that the process of the technology decision here justifies additional review by the states. As explained in our attached submission, the Pleasure Craft regulation aspect of the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG was not in the proposed CTG. It only surfaced for industry’s review in the final CTG. With no formal administrative appeal to USEPA allowed for final CTGs, we sought an informal resolution of the matter which resulted in the USEPA letter. As the CTG indicates, USEPA selection of the VOC the pleasure craft coatings limits was based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. It is important to note that these limits were even recognized by the SCAQMD as being technology

-forcing when they were adopted. "The VOC limits were decreased from 650 g/l to 490 g/l for Extreme High Gloss Topcoats, 600 g/l to 420 g/l for Finish Primers, and 400 g/l to 150 g/l for Antifoulants. At the time of rule adoption, the July 1, 1994 VOC limits were

### considered technology forcing. Coatings meeting the July 1, 1994 VOC limits were either in development or undergoing initial introduction into the pleasure craft coating industry." See http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/1999/99012a.html Subsequently as indicted in the 1999 rulemaking amending 1106.1 , SCAQMD found that the hoped for technology had not developed and it provided for h igher limits for these key coatings categories for two years. It undoubtedly limited the suspension to two years because it apparently believed it was constrained by general product variance statutory requirements of the California Clean Air law which limits variances for products that cannot meet required clean air requirements to two years. See California Health and Safety Code Section 42368 at http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./hsc/42001

-43000/42365

- 42372 “(b) A product variance may be issued for a period exceeding one year, but in no event to exceed two years from the date of the granting of the initial product variance....” Additionally, for the antifouling coatings, pesticide registrations would require a certain period to be completed. Besides these technology problems with the limits, the SCAQMD regulation was adopted before the ban on TBT containing antifouling coatings and thus failed to include a coatings category that is designed to contain their release- an "Antifoulant Sealer/Tie Coating". As our comments point out, because of the continuing impossibility of the lower limits to be effectively met, the industry decamped from the SCAQMD on the expiration of the two year suspension of the lower limits. In the end, the technology forcing limits for key coatings could not be met and forced a large pleasure craft building and repair industry to leave the SCAQMD

. You should also know that the following state agencies have agreed with our comments and are proposing to modify the CTG accordingly, or are considering to do so. Missouri See http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/5

-330responsetocomment.pdf Ohio http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/27/regs/3745

-21/3745

-21

-26_Phase3_Prop.pdf Connecticut -Contact Merrily Gere 860

- 424

-3416

### merrily. gere@ct.gov New Hampshire http://www.des.state.nh.us/organization/commissioner/legal/rulemaking/documents/env

a1200

- ip.pdf Maricopa County- Contact Kathleen Sommer, Planner 602.506.6706 SommerK@mail.maricopa.gov North Carolina-contact Pla nning Engineer Vladimir Zaytsev (919) 715

-4398 vladimir.zaytsev@ncdenr.gov 

### The recent official proposal in the Missouri Gazette does not entirely reflect this due to a transcription error which carried fo rward only the 5 lbs/ gal limit for Extreme High Gloss coatings. We understand Missouri has now corrected this. To verify this you may wish to Contact Stan Payne of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (573

-751

-4817 Stan.payne@dnr.mo.gov) This is a matter of principle for the ACA. For nearly three decades we have worked cooperatively with USEPA and state and local clean air agencies to help craft reasonable and effective reformulations of our coatings to help meet clean air goals. As our comments indicate, we were not afforded this kind of opportunity to work with USEPA on these VOC limits before they were issued in a final CTG. Our efforts for a reasonable resolution of this issue has included requesting USEPA’s OAQPS to revisit the Pleasure Craft Coatings VOC limits during its present consideration of the coatings for a NESHAP. In response to its prior request for information in its development of the NESHAP , our industry provided it with current pleasure craft coatings data. Hence it can determine current VOC technology possibilities on the basis of that data. In fact it had this data at the time it developed the Pleasu re Craft coatings VOC regulation aspect of the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG and it could have referred to it for actual current VOC coatings technology. That it did not do so reflects the hurried nature of its decision making process caused by the pressing SIP information needs of the states. Unfortunately, we have not heard from USEPA in response to our request to reconsider the Pleasure Craft aspect of the CTG and thus must continue with our state

- by

-state effort.

### Al so as you know, histo rically USEPA has first developed the more stringent NESHAP standards for coatings before turning to examining the RACT standard for their non

HAP VOC emissions. The logic of this is that the more stringent N E SHAP standard which applies nationally may red uce or even obviate development of a less stringent RACT standard for the VOC emissions that applies only to ozone nonattainment areas. Unfortunately this practice was not followed here

-- again undoubtedly due to pressures to get CTG standards out as soon as possible to help the states meet pressing SIP schedules. As suggested, h ad it been followed, this issue could have been avoided

. In reviewing the current formulation data , USEPA would have seen the VOC limits with which are concerned are not available or technologically achievable and thus cannot be considered current RACT. We would welcome a meeting with your staff in which we can demonstrate some of our concerns with coatings panels. The difference in the desired gloss look often can only be ful ly appreciated by seeing the panels. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Respectfully submitted,

Jim Sell Senior Counsel 202

-462

-6272 ext 252

### January 12, 2011 ACA Comments on Pleasure Craft CTG Modification s required to South Coast rule 1106.1 for establishing a suitable RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry Summary The required changes to rule 1106.1 to form a RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry are summarised in table 1.
Table 1 – Showing required changes by industry compared to limits in rule 1106.1 (changes indicated by red font) Coating Category CTG VOC content taken from South Coast rule 1106.1 (g/L) I ndustry VOC Proposal for RACT (g/L) Extreme High Gloss Coating * 490 600 High Gloss Coating 420 420 Pre

-Treatment Wash Primer** 780 780 Finish Primer/Surfacer 420 600 High Build Primer Surfacer 340 340 Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 560 560 Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 330 400 All other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal and plastic 420 420 Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat (new category) 420 * Revised definition required : Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflection on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D523

- 89 * * Revised definition required : Pre

-Treatment Wash Primer means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings. The following sections provide more detail to substantiate proposed modifications

### Revised VOC limit for **Finish Primer/Surfacer** category Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of the ir boats . The finish is expected to be super smooth, super glossy (almost ‘mirror

- like’) and durable. Coatings can be applied by a variety of application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must flow out to give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to flow out and achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower solids content) are required for both the topcoats and the p rimers which go beneath them Introducing high solid s/low VOC primers that provide a smooth, easy

-to
-sand surface necessary to provide the aesthetics demanded by owners will require significant time to develop and evaluate. Currently, high solid s/low VOC primers often require additional sanding, creating more dust, to achieve the same smooth surface that is obtained with currently available products. This would necessitate a change in working practices in yards to overcome the increased health hazard assoc iated with the increased dust levels. An additional issue relating to a switch to lower VOC Finish/Primer surfacers is that the cost can be as much as 40% or more higher than currently available, higher VOC products. This, in combination with increased labor costs associated with the additional sanding needed to remove the increased surface texture, will make yards in areas where a VOC limit of 420g/lt is implemented uncompetitive with yards in other states. As an interim measure to ensure that competitive products can be supplied into ozone non

compliance areas during the next four years that meet the aesthetic and performance requirements demanded by boat owners, the industry requires VOC levels of the Rule 1106.1 “Finish Primer/Surfacer” coating catego ry to be revised from 420 g/L to 600 g/L

. (See panels showing differences between high and low VOC containing primers which fit into this category)

### Revised VOC limit for **Extreme High Gloss Coating** category The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represe nts a comparatively small but critical, high value segment of the overall pleasure craft market. The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to the topsides of pleasure craft are of primary importance to boat owners, a fact that should be neither underestimated n or dismissed. The owner has invested a significant sum of money into owning his yacht and the quality of the final appearance is its‘ crowning glory’

. If boat owners cannot achieve the desired super

glossy, mirror

- like finish, they will not sett le for an inferior solution – they will simply have the ir boats painted elsewhere. These coating s are professionally applied so any restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and immediate bearing on employment levels and local revenues
. High solids topcoats have not been well received in the North American pleasure craft coating market. In general, applicators and boat owners have found the finish that these products provide to be inferior to traditional, higher VOC containing products. This can be seen clearly in the situation where a yacht coated with a high solids topcoat is moored alongside one coated with a traditional finish

. Although high solids and water

- based technologies are available and in use in other industries (e.g. car refinishing and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make the use of these coatings possible in those industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft coating industry. Despite much product development activity, the lower VOC technolog ies available at this time do not provide the appearance and functionality required from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating

. Some low VOC topcoats, originating from the car refinish market and now being marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a polymer type that provides reduced durability. These coatings have a reduced lifetime and their use will necessitate a more frequent recoating schedule which means in relative terms, more VOC is emitted. An additional issue relating to a switch to lower VOC extreme high gloss topcoats is that the cost can be as much as 60% or more higher than currently available, higher VOC products. The resultant increase in scheme cost will make yards in areas where a VOC limit of 490g/lt is implemented uncompetitive with yards in other states or in other countries. A final point of importance is that i n a typical extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents less than 40% of the overall VOC burden and less than 10% of total yacht coatings on an annualised basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non

attainment in South Coast AQMD in California. It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption for the majority of non

-attainment areas where the problem is ‘Moderate’ according to the EPA. The industry feels that restricting the VOC of some of the other coating categories and setting the VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 g/L , will provide the state with a balanced VOC reduction strategy that is appropriate to the challenge and that does not seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry. This VOC limit change should be permanent as industry does not foresee any new technology emerging that can offer a route to providing performance characteristics which are acceptable by the pleasure craft coating industry. (see topcoat panels which demonstrate difference in appearance between high solids and traditional formulations ). 

### Revised Coating Category Definition for**E xtreme High Gloss Topcoat**  As mentioned above , application of topcoats is undertaken in a variety of environmental conditions that can have an effect on the final gloss level of the product at the point of application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in the definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read; “Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves **greater than 90**  percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523
-89”

### Revised VOC limit for Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low VOC antifouling coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low VOC/Zero VOC technology is constantly evolving and improving. The key is to set VOC targets at a realistic level based on what we know today in order to ensure the maximum compromise between performance, cost, appearance, drying time and application characteristics. Formulations are currently registered with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint. As the VOC is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with something non

-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with a concomitan t reduction in performance/reduced lifetime of the coating. This may mean more frequent application of the antifouling, potentially leading to a greater overall VOC impact. It is also true that high solids/low VOC coatings tend to dry slower than their hi gh VOC counterparts and this can impact the overall productivity of a yard for example. Similarly, water based technologies are not a panacea to the VOC challenge , though water

- based technologies are being very heavily scrutinised by coatings manufacturers

. In general water based coatings can only be formulated at low volume solids (30% compared to say 60%+ for an equivalent solvent

- based system). This inevitably means thin films containing less biocide (which affects the performance and lifetime of the coating) The data below shows the performance challenge with changing VOC. Panels 1

- 3 (left) are all based on the same active package

. The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based controls.

VOC 32 8g/l std 460 g/l w/based 68g/l std 468 g/l 350 g/L
In addition, technologies for low VOC antifoulings often result in a rougher film. T he roughness of the hull contributes directly to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the case of racing yachtsThe Nati onal Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart II) limits a ntifoulings in the US to 400g/L . Likewise SCAQMD Marine R ule 1106 applies a VOC limit for antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given the current state of the existing technology. Certainly we find no justification in setting a limit lower than that applied to the National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair and the SCAQMD 1106 limits. T he following VOC limit amendment is therefore required ; Category of “Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating” – amend from 330g/L to 400g/L (see demonstration films which show a low VOC water based Antifouling compared to a solvent based equivalent)

### Additional Speciality Category and VOC Limit : **Antifouling Sealer/Tie**  **Coat** Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to reflect pleasure craft coatings of the modern day which are more environmentally friendly and/or compliant with International law. A new category is required as a result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. This convention was ratified in 2007 and hou ses a list of substances banned from use in antifoulings in Annex 1. Tri Butyl Tin (TBT) is the first addition to Annex 1 and the use of this biocide in antifoulings on the hulls of any marine vessels entering the waters of countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements of Annex 1 of the AFS

. A specialised coating type is required to seal in old TBT containing antifoulings and to promote adhesion of biocide

-free, non -stick foul release coatings when applied to vessels. The use of biocide

-free coatings brings significant environmental benefits. The category should be named ‘ Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat’ with a maximum VOC content of 420 g/L

. Antifouling Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced into the market largely to facilitate compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO

-Antifouling Systems Convention (2001). Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 g/L in order to facilitate adequate pen etration into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion. They also contain a high degree of polymeric material (hence need a higher VOC content to maintain an acceptable application viscosity) so the coating can form a flexible yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film. An appropriate definition for this type of coating would be... “a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling coating for the purpose of preventing release of biocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion between an antifouling and a primer or other antifoulings.”

### Revised definition for th e category of **“Pretreatment Wash Primer** The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer in South Coast rule 1106.1 is restricting the development of alternative products which would be considerably less toxic to humans and the environment than those used currently. Products which meet the current definition for this are formulated to contain known carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530

- 65

-9) and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS 37 300

-23

-5) 1 due to the excellent anti

-corrosive properties of th ese materials

. In most cases the approach taken in the CTG is to define the control category in terms of the product attribute. For example, the definition of a High Gloss Topcoat refers specifically to the performance attribute of the product – the gloss result. However, in the case of the

“ Pretreatment Wash Primer ” category, the approach has been to define the category both in terms of the formulation parameters (acid content and solids content) and the performance attribute of the product (surface etching). By taking this approach, South Coast EPA has very much tied industry to the current, well established but very toxic zinc

- based etch primers. This definition requires amending to allow for the introduction of safer, alternative etch systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate

. Industry would like a permanent modification made to the definition so that it read s as follows;

“ PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fibreglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings” The ‘percent solids’ value must be raised form 12 to 25 to allow for an increased quantity of safer (non

-carcinogenic) replacement pigment which is required for equivalent coating performance. These replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to p erform adequately therefore it is also necessary to reduce the deminimus value associated to ‘percent acids’ from 0.5 to 0.1

. Request Small Container Exemption Many industrial and commercial coatings VOC regulations include a small container exemption confined to not exceed a litre or a quart. They also often include an annual limitation on the amount used. Architectural and industrial maintenance rules also contain such exemptions. The purpose behind these exemptions is to allow for small repairs and touches ups to existing coatings that if done in timely manner can often avoid larger paint jobs later. In the commercial or industrial setting, the small container exemptions allows minor repairs at the end of the painting line to avoid having to completely recoat the object of product. Thus the higher VOC materials actually reduce overall VOC emissions by allowing such repairs and touch ups to avoid complete overall or redo paint jobs.

1 Rated as known carcinogens by Occupational Safety & Health Administrator (OSHA), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R ES EARCH T RIANGLE PAR K , NC 2771 1



# JUN01 2010

MEMORANDUM OFF I CE OF A I R QUA LITY P LAN NI NG AND STANDARDS



### SUBJECT: Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings

- Industry Request for Reconsid**ti~--** 

### FROM: Stephen D. Page, Directb. Office of Air Quality PIa I 

### TO: Chief, Air Branch Regions I-X The purpose of this memorandum is to inform EPA Regional Offices that members of the pleasure craft industry have contacted EPA to request changes to the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings (MMPPC) (EPA-453/R-08- 0373). This memorandum serves as a reminder to EPA Regional Offices ofthe role that CTG play in the State Implementation Plans (SIP) process for ozone nonattainment areas. CTG provide information and recommendations for state and local air pollution control agencies to consider when developing rules to meet the Clean Air Act's (CAA) reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements. Specifically, we reiterate that the information contained in CTG, including the MMPPC CTG, is provided only as guidance. The CTG do not impose any legally binding requirements on any entity

. State and local air pollution control agencies are free to implement other technically-sound approaches that are consistent with the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. Therefore, EPA does not intend to revise the MMPPC CTG. Instead, EPA is recommending that the pleasure craft industry work together with state agencies in the RACT rule development process for MMPPC to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated under each state's rules

. EPA will evaluate the state-developed RACT rules and determine through notice and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations. BACKGROUND The MMPPC CTG were published on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58486). On September 14, 2009, EPA was contacted by the pleasure craft industry with a request for EPA to reconsider some of the emission limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC) recommended in the MMPPC CTG. In its letter to EPA, industry asserted that three of the emission limits for VOC, recommended in the MMPPC CTG for pleasure craft, were too low considering the performance requirements of pleasure craft coatings, and that overall, the VOC emission limits recommended in the MMPPC

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/ R ecyclable. Printed wrth Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Min i mum 25 % Postconsumer)

### 2
CTG did not represent RACT for the national pleasure craft coatings industry, To get further clarification of the issues, EPA held an industry conference call and spoke with individual industry members on several other occasions. The pleasure craft industry presented what they deemed to be technological and feasibility challenges to meeting the VOC emission limits recommended in the MMPPC CTG. Table 2 of the MMPPC CTG recommends the following VOC content limits (expressed in terms of mass ofVOC per volume of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied) for surface coating of pleasure craft:



### T bl 2 PI

a e 

# . easure 

### C ft 

### S f 

### C f 

### VOC C ttL' 't ra ur ace oa**lll~** 

### on en Iml 

### s

- - --- ... _. .. . - 

### kg VOC/liter Ihs VOC/gal**rQa~i~g C~** **t~9JT** 

### _ __ _ ______ ... _- . . ._ - ..- -- - . . .._--.-- -- - - ... . - 

### _**~()~.i~ _**  ..:.,- 

### cOllting Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 0.49 4.1 High Gloss Topcoat 0.42 3.5 Pretreatment Wash Primers 0.78 6.5 Finish Primer/Surfacer 0.42 3.5 High Build Primer Surfacer 0.34 2.8 Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 0.56 4.7 Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 0.33 2.8 All other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal 0.42 3.5 or plastic Also, the MMPPC CTG provide an option to meet alternate emission rate limits based on lowVOC coatings and add-on controls. Table 10 of the MMPPC CTG recommends the following emission rate limits for pleasure craft operations:



### Table 10. Pleasure Craft Surface Coating VOC Emission Rate Limits (VOC per Volume Solids) kg VOC/liter Ibs VOC/gal Coating 

### Ca

- teg()ry

_ _ ... _ ... 

### soUd$

-- 

### solids Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 1,10 9.2 High Gloss Topcoat 0.80 6.7 Pretreatment Wash Primers 6.67 55.6 Finish Primer/Surfacer 0.80 6.7 High Build Primer Surfacer 0.55 4.6 Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 1.53 12.8 Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 0.53 4.4 All other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal 0.80 6.7 or plastic The three pleasure craft categories that industry requested EPA to reconsider were extreme gloss, high gloss and antifoulant coatings. Industry urged EPA to revise the MMPPC CTG to include an averaging approach as a compliance option to allow pleasure craft coating facilities to use a combination of high and low VOC-containing products as long as the average value was kept

### 3
below a level specified by EPA. In summary, the pleasure craft industry suggested that the CTG be revised to include (one or all of) the following measures: 1, Regulate VOC emissions from facilities using pleasure craft coatings by including an averaging approach as a compliance option. If this is not deemed possible, then points 2 and 3 should apply. 2. Amend the MMPPC CTG "Finish Primer/Surfacer" VOC limit from 420g/L to 600gIL 

### for a four-year interim period to allow coating manufacturers and users sufficient time to develop and implement compliant coatings. 3. Make permanent changes to the MMPPC CTG with immediate and permanent effects, as follows:

• Add an**addi~ional** 

### specialty category of "Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat" with VOC limit of 420gIL 

### to align the MMPPC CTG with the International Maritime Organization's International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships; • Change the VOC emission limits in the category, "Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating" from 330g/L to 400glL;

. 

### • Change the VOC emission limits in the category, "Extreme High Gloss" from 420 giL to 600 

### gIL, reflecting the very specialized nature of the coatings in this category; and • Revise the coating category definition of "Extreme High Gloss Topcoat" to read: 

### "Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested by ASTMMethod D 523-89. " 

### 4. Make the provisions and VOC limits in the pleasure craft categories of the MMPPC CTG consistent with the requirements of the planned revision to the Shipbuilding MACT Standard. OAQPS RECOMMENDATION 

### After careful evaluation of the issues raised by the pleasure craft industry, OAQPS is recommending that the pleasure craft industry work with state agencies during their RACT rule development process to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated because the CTG impose no legally binding requirements on any entity, including pleasure craft coating facilities. CAA Section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include "reasonably available control measures" (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states mustrevise their SIPs to include RACT for each category ofVOC sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment. The CTG are intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities with information to assist them in determining RACT for VOC.**Bas~d** 

### on available information and data, EPA has provided recommendations for RACT for MMPPC operations, including pleasure craft coating operations, in the MMPPC CTG. States can use the recommendations from the MMPPC CTG to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOC for pleasure craft coating operations in their particular ozone nonattainment areas.

### 4



### Regardless of whether a state chooses to implement the recommendations contained in the MMPPC CTG through state rules, or to issue state rules that adopt different approaches, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA will evaluate the state's RACT rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations. If a state proposes to adopt any of the recommendations in the MMPPC CTG into its state RACT rules, interested parties can comment on and raise objections about the application of any specific RACT recommendation in the MMPPC CTG to a particular situation during the development ofthe state rules and EPA's SIP approval process. Should you have further questions, please contact Kaye Whitfield of my staff at 919-541- 2509 or whitfield.kaye@epa.gov,

### 5
OAR-1 0-000-7927 OAQPS/SPPDINRCG:KWhitfield/jrogers(x 14487):RTP

### IE 143- 03/04231 0lF:JRoger08/KWhitfieldl OAR100007927MMPPC Response Steve Page

- Kaye

.. 20May10.doc Coordinated with AQPD.