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 ofwhich are herewith

served upon you.

Respectf,J11y submitted,

ILLIN01S ENV1RONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

BY:~?~f'- Dana Vetterhofter

ASSIstant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: Apri] 14,20] J

J02 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, Ihave 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 ofthe Bureau ofAir 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 ofthe

Board's air polIlltion regulations and oversee The proce.ss ofsending 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 ofthe 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 1am 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

ofAir 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 ofAir ofthe 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 ("VOM") emissions sources in preparation ofthe State Implementation

Plans ("SlPs") for the Chicago and S1. Louis ozone Ilonattaimnent areas ('NAAs"); and assisting

in the development ofregulations 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 ofthe 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 182(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, J990, 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 I0-20). 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 pro1/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.

"J
UNITED 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,Ilrn ois 62794-9276

Ii"',1/

Dea:tf!:J;/M6ack:

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 ofthe 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, ofmy staff, at (312) 886-6052.

Attachment

Rc:P.:ycI2dfRecyclable. 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 ofsource would also be required to choose from

one ofthe following metl10ds of compliance:

l) A limit of 1.67 ]b/ga] for the cleaning ofink 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 ofin 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 offresh 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, "Ifthe 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 orrotogravure

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 ofthe 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 of2.91bs/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, "Ifthe 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 ofYOM 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 ofmass 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 ofthe 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 I8.891 (c)(4) - Language should be added to clarify that the rom1Ulas calculate monomer YOM

emission rates in tenus of kg ofmonomer YOM per,Mg ofresin 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 PVu 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 DAVlD 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({iljIIinois.gov

Matthew Dlil1n, Chief

Division 0 f Environmental Enforcement

Office ofthe 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,org

April 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 available 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, PII represents the printing and publishing industry (SIC 2700 and various NAICS 

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 $9.3 billion. Approximately 1,915 companies 

employing about 60,485 workers are engaged in offset lithographic 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 comments. 

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 Association 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2011 

 * * * * * PC# 1 * * * * *
COMMENTS 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 Cleaning

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. However 

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 manufacturing 

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 lithographic 

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. Section 218.187(a)(2)(C) of this rule exempts numerous cleaning operations from sections (b), 

(c), (f), and (g) of the rule, but not section (e). For sources identified in Section (a)(2)(C), the 

only applicable requirement in section (e), is (e)(2)(vii), which 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 operations 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). 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2011 

 * * * * * PC# 1 * * * * *
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 solutions used with shop towels kept in closed containers that have a vapor 

pressure of 10 mm Hg or less at 20o

C (68oF). The 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 is due to cleaning solutions having a vapor pressure below 10 mm

Hg at 20o

C (68oF), 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 Technical Support Document for Title V Permitting of 

Printing Facilities. 

Page 60 of the 2007 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 19 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 composite 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 Printing

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2011 

 * * * * * PC# 1 * * * * *
The 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 January 

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: 

• Printers 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 compliance 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) needs 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 

demonstrating compliance with the proposed rule. 

This recommendation is consistent with the USEPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) for Title 

V Permitting of Printing Operations (www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/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 

(regenerative 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 should 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 been 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2011 

 * * * * * PC# 1 * * * * *
conducted 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 material 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 

material 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 VOM, 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 15, 2011 

 * * * * * PC# 1 * * * * *
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 1have today :filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control

B081'd the MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL ofthe Illinois Environmental

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

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

/, .

By: 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 ofits 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 20c

e (68"F);

3. In response to a comment by an industry representative, the lllinois EPA recommends

amending Section 2I8/2 I9.409(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 ifsuch 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

EPA 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe press are consistent with the operation ofthe 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 USEPA. and that the cun-ent operating

conditionS and operating caDacity ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofIllinoisllndiana 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 USEPA, the

Agency recommends against PlI!SGIA's proposed revision,

Pll/SGlA also suggests increasing the amount oftime 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 beenthe requirement for many years. PlJISGlA has not demonstrated that an

additional 90 days (a total ofsix months) is now needed to prepare for a test.

4. In Section 218.90 I(c)(2) ofthe Illinois EP1\'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 ofmass. 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 of1*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 USEPA, 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 ofthe proposal. (35 Ill. Reg. 4887,5185). In

light ofUSEPA'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 ofthis

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 ofthis 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

5
R] ]-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 ofNatural Resources

One Naturai Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

virginia·Yilllgu.uiJl.inois,gov

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division of Environluental Enforcen1ent

Ofiice ofthe 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

ise!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) 419-9292
Page 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 Miscellaneous 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 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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 higher 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 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
merrily.gere@ct.gov

New Hampshire

http://www.des.state.nh.us/organization/commissioner/legal/rulemaking/documents/enva1200-ip.pdf

 

Maricopa County- Contact 

Kathleen Sommer, Planner 

602.506.6706 

SommerK@mail.maricopa.gov

North Carolina-contact

Planning 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 forward 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 Pleasure 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.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
Also as you know, historically USEPA has first developed the more stringent NESHAP 

standards for coatings before turning to examining the RACT standard for their nonHAP VOC emissions. The logic of this is that the more stringent NESHAP standard 

which applies nationally may reduce 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, had 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 fully 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

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
January 12, 2011

ACA Comments on Pleasure Craft CTG

Modifications 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)

Industry 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

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
Revised VOC limit for Finish Primer/Surfacer category

Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of their 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 

primers which go beneath them 

Introducing high solids/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 solids/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 associated 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 noncompliance 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 category 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)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
Revised VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss Coating category

The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents 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 nor 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 superglossy, mirror-like finish, they will not settle for an inferior solution – they will simply have their

boats painted elsewhere. These coatings 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 

technologies 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 in 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 nonattainment 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 Extreme 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”

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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 

concomitant 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 high 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 328g/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. The 

roughness of the hull contributes directly to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the 

case of racing yachts 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
The National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR Part 63 

Subpart II) limits antifoulings in the US to 400g/L. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 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. The 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)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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 houses 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 

penetration 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.” 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
Revised definition for the 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 37300-23-5)1 due to the excellent anti-corrosive properties of 

these 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 reads 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 perform 

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)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2771 1 

JUN01 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

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/Recyclable. Printed wrth Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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 a e bl 2 . PI easure C ra ft S ur f ace C oa f lll~ VOC C on ttL' en Iml 't 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 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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 ASTM Method 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 1 72( 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. 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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, 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011
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. 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 6, 2011