State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

101 S. Webster St.

Jim Doyle , Governor Box 7921

Matthew J. Frank, Secretary Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921

Telephone 608-266-2621

FAX 608-267-3579

TTY Access via relay - 711

September 1, 2009

Mr. Bharat Mathur, Acting Region V Administrator

USEPA-Region V (R-19J)

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604

Subject: Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rules

Dear Mr. Mathur:

On March 17, 2008, EPA notified DNR that Wisconsin's state implementation plan was deficient regarding VOC

RACT emission limits in Wisconsin's ozone nonattainment areas based on recently published Control Technique

Guidelines (CTGs). In order to meet the deficiencies cited in this letter, DNR completed rules that became

effective on August 1, 2009. By this letter and attachments, DNR is submitting information to resolve these

deficiencies.

Because the VOC RACT rule changes were completed to address deficiencies in many different source

categories, DNR completed three separate rule packages to address changes to current rules and additions needed

for source categories that had not been regulated . These rule packages were:

1. AM-19-08 amended portions of chs. NR 422., NR 423, NR 439, and NR 484 Wis. Adm. Code. AM-19-

08 created portions of chs. NR 422 and NR 423, Wis. Code. By creating and amending these chapters

DNR addressed updated requirements to the following VOC RACT categories.

• Paper Coating

• Metal Furniture Coating

• Large Appliance Coating

• Flat Wood Paneling Coating

• Flexible Package Printing

• Offset Lithographic Printing

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents

2. AM-23-08 amended portions of ch. NR 439, Wis. Adm. Code, and created a section in ch. NR 421, Wis.

Adm. Code to address VOC RACT requirements for synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry

(SOCMI) that have air oxidation or distillation and reactor processes.

3. AM-24-08 amended portions of ch. NR 484, Wis. Adm. Code, and created sections in ch. NR 419, Wis.

Adm. Code to address VOC RACT requirements for industrial wastewater collection and treatment

operations.

dnr.wi.gov

wisconsin.gov Printed on

Recycled

er
DNR requests EPA process this SIP revision as expeditiously as possible so that Wisconsin will avoid potential

federal sanctions as mentioned in the March 17, 2008 EPA letter.

If you have any questions regarding this SIP revision submittal, please feel free to call either Larry Brass at 608-

267-7543 or Ralph Patterson at 608-267-7546.

Sincerely,

Cc: Mr. John Mooney, USA--Region V (A-1 8J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604

Ralph Patterson -AM/7

Tom Steidl -LS/8

Larry Bruss-AM/7
Attachments

SIP Checklist for AM-19-08, AM-23-08, and AM-24-08. Individual information for each rule package is also

provided:

1. AM-19-08

• Natural Resources Board Adoption Green Sheet

• Background memo

• Public hearing notice

• Comment response memo

• Newspaper proof of public hearing

• Rule Order

• NR 422 and NR 423, Wis. Adm. Code

• SIP Certification

2. AM-23-08

• Natural Resources Board Adoption Green Sheet

• Background memo

• Rule Order

• Public hearing notice

• Newspaper proof of public hearing

• NR 421 and NR 439, Wis. Adm. Code

• SIP Certification

3. AM-24-08

• Natural Resources Board Adoption Green Sheet

• Background memo

• Public hearing notice

• Newspaper proof of public hearing

• Rule Order

• NR 419 and NR 484, Wis. Adm. Code

• SIP Certification

• Incorporation by Reference Information
EPA Region V 

Wisconsin SIP Submittal 

Completeness Review

Submittal Letter 

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (John Melby, Jr.)? Yes _X__ No ___ 

2. Date of Submittal ____September 1, 2009__________________________________ 

3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. 

Name _Ralph Patterson_______________ Telephone __608-267-7546 

 FAX Number ____608-267-0560 

E-MAIL Address___Ralph.Patterson@Wisconsin.gov 

4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal 

Name _Larry Bruss________ Telephone __608-267-7543__________ 

 FAX Number ___608-267-7543___________ 

E-MAIL Address___Larry.Bruss@Wisconsin.gov___________________________ 

Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State incorporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code 

supplied in this SIP package? 

 Yes _x_ 

 No__ if No explain. 

6. The effective date of the regulation is or was ______August 1, 2009______________ 

7. Are test methods/rules incorporated by reference correctly? (Has approval been obtained from the 

state Attorney General 

 Yes_____X__ 

 No_______ 

 Not applicable _______ 

 For No and Not applicable explain answer. 

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and 

implement the revision? 

 Yes ___x____ 

 No _______ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary). 

Each rule order supplies DNR’s legal authority to amend or create rules necessary to 

meet the rule deficiencies. 

9. Did the State include a copy of the actual regulation or document for USEPA review? 

 Yes __x__ 

 No_____ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary). 
2

We have supplied copies of all relevant administrative codes affected by the VOC RACT rule 

requirements. 

10. Did the State provide evidence that it followed all of the requirements of its Administrative 

Procedures Act (ch. 227, Wis. Stats., Administrative Procedure and Review) in conducting and 

completing adoption/issuance of the revision? 

 Yes_x___

 No______ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary) For each rule package, DNR followed set rule procedure by 

developing the rules, requesting authorization from the Natural Resources Board to go to public hearing, 

holding a public hearing, addressing comments from the public hearing (if any were received), modifying 

the rule (if necessary), requesting adoption of the final rule by the Natural Resources Board, submitting the 

adopted rule to the Wisconsin Legislature Natural Resources Committees for review, and then publishing 

the final rule after review by the Wisconsin Legislature. 

11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of 

publication? 

 Yes__x__ 

 No ____ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary) 

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public hearings were held in accordance with 

the information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof). 

 Yes__x_ 

 No___ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary). 

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of public comments and the State’s response? 

 Yes__x__ 

 No____ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary). 

Comments were received and addressed for rule package AM-18-08. Comments were not received for 

rule packages AM-23-08 and AM-24-08. 

Technical Issues 

14. Name the all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision? ____VOC_______ 

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for 

the area(s) 

 Yes____ 

 No___x__ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary) These rule revisions apply to ozone nonattainment areas 

and were required to address new Control Technique Guideline (CTG) requirements. 
3

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources? 

 Yes_____ 

 No__x___ 

 Additional Explanation (if necessary) 

The rule revisions apply to source categories in the ozone nonattainment areas.
4

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the 

changes in actual emissions from affected sources? 

 Yes___ 

 No__x__ 

 Additional explanation (if necessary) Not applicable 

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility will be 

protected if the revision is approved and implemented? 

 Yes____ 

 No___x_ 

 Additional explanation (if necessary). Not applicable 

19. Has the State provided modeling information to support the revision. 

 Yes___ 

 No____ 

 Unnecessary_X___ 

20. Has the State provided evidence that emission limitations are based on continuous emission 

reduction technology? 

 Yes____ 

 No__X__ 

 Additional explanation (if necessary). 

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice 

standards and record keeping/reporting requirements where necessary, to ensure emission levels? 

 Yes_X__ 

 No____ 

 Additional explanation (if necessary). The background memos supplied with each rule package 

identifies the recordkeeping/reporting requirements necessary for the source of the VOC emissions. 

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be 

determined in practice, and at what frequency? 

 Yes___ 

 No_x__ 

 Additional explanation (if necessary). 
5

STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY 

USEPA USE ONLY 

SIP Package Number ___________ 

Date Received by USEPA ________________ 

Date Due_____________________________ 

State: WISCONSIN 
6

WDNR Information 

Subject Matter: VOC RACT Deficiences 

Applicability 

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 

What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion Any source located in an ozone 

nonattainment area that belongs 

the following source categories:

 Paper Coating 

• Metal Furniture Coating 

• Large Appliance Coating 

• Flat Wood Paneling 

Coating 

• Flexible Package Printing 

• Offset Lithographic 

Printing 

• Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents 

 Synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry 

(SOCMI) that have air 

oxidation or distillation 

and reactor processes 

 Industrial wastewater 

collection and treatment 

operations.

What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion In general, the rules apply to source

emitting more than 3 tons per year o

emissions [before consideration of 

controls] on a 12 month rolling basi

Various other exemptions apply to 

specific coatings or other processes 

that are consistent with the CTG. 

Is calculation procedure for 

exemption clearly specified? 

Supply example calculation or clear explanation 

of how to determine exemption (line by line, 

etc.) 

Exempt processes are clearly define

in the definitions section of the rule

or in most cases the definitions 

existed in previously approved rules

For instance, Stencil Coatings are 

exempt from the emission limits in 

NR 422.115. Previously approved 

rules define stencil coatings as “an 

ink or coating applied onto or over 
7

stencil at a thickness on one mil or 

less of ink or coating solids...” 

Is emission inventory listed in the 

background document of the 

attainment demonstration? 

Inventory including allowable and actual 

emissions in source category should be 

included, for enforcement purposes and 

independent of any Clean Air Act requirements, 

in the attainment demonstration if such data is 

necessary for determining baselines in 

regulations. 

No. This is not an attainment 

demonstration. DNR is simply 

meeting new CTG requirements.

Is the averaging time(s) used in 

the rule different from that of the 

ambient standard? 

The averaging time in the rule must be 

consistent with protecting the ambient standard 

in question. Normally, it should be equal to or 

shorter than the time associated with the 

standard. Longer term averaging is available 

only in limited instances provided that the 

ambient standard is not compromised. 

Not applicable.

What are the units of compliance 

(lbs VOC per gallon of solids 

applied less water, grains per 

standard cubic foot?) 

Clearly stated in the rule. The compliance units are clearly 

identified in the rules. However, 

since the rules cover multiple 

processes and industries, there are n

consistent compliance units among 

the various rules.

Is bubbling or averaging of any 

type allowed? If yes, state 

criteria. Could a USEPA 

inspector independently determine 

if the criteria were met?? Does 

USEPA have to approve each 

case? 

Explicit description of how averaging, bubbling, 

or equivalency is to be determined. VOC 

equivalency must be on a “solids applied” basis. 

Any method must be independently 

reproducible. Provision must be explicit as to 

whether USEPA case-by-case approval is 

required. If provision intended to be “generic” 

then USEPA bubble policy must be met. 

Bubbling or averaging of any typ

is not allowed.

If there is a redesignation, will 

this change the emission 

limitations? If yes, which ones 

and how? 

Regulation may not automatically allow for self 

nullification upon redesignation of area to 

attainment. New maintenance demonstration 

required to order to drop regulation. 

DNR is not requesting a 

redesignation with this SIP 

revision.

Compliance Dates 

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 

What is the compliance date? The compliance date must not be later 

than the approved or about to be 

approved date of attainment unless 

emission reductions are not necessary 

for attainment. In some cases, it will 

be necessary for the regulation to 

specify dates in compliance schedules 

that are required to be submitted by 

source to state. 

October 1, 2009

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. Not applicable

Specificity of conduct 
8

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 

What test method is required? Test method must be explicitly stated. Rules have recordkeeping 

requirements. Test methods are not 

required.

What is the averaging time in the 

compliance test method? 

Averaging time and application of 

limit must be explicit. 

Not applicable.

Is a compliance calculation or 

evaluation required? (i.e., daily 

weighted average for VOC). 

Clearly defined. The compliance methods are clearly 

identified in the rules or in some cases 

previously approved rules. However, 

since the rules cover multiple processes

and industries, there are no consistent 

compliance methods among the various

rules.

If a compliance calculation is 

necessary, list the formula, period of 

compliance, and/or evaluation 

method. 

Formula must be explicit. 

Incorporation by reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 

What is the state authority for 

rulemaking. 

Clearly stated. Please refer to Natural Resources 

Board orders supplied for each VOC

rule. These Board orders clearly sta

DNR’s rule making authority. 

Are methods/rules incorporated by 

reference in the right manner? 

Clearly stated. 

Record keeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 

What records are required to 

determine compliance? 

Clearly stated. The record keeping requirements are 

clearly identified in the rules or in some

cases previously approved rules. 

However, since the rules cover multiple

processes and industries, there are no 

consistent record keeping requirements 

among the various rules. 

In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, 

etc.) must the records be kept? On 

what time basis (instantaneously, 

hourly daily)? 

Records to be kept must be consistent 

with units of compliance in the 

performance requirements, including 

the applicable time period . 

See above response.

Does the rule affirmatively require 

the records be kept? 

There must be clearly defined and 

distinguishable from what constitutes 

a violation. 

See above response.

Exemptions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 
9

List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and 

distinguishable from what constitutes 

a violation. 

In general, the rules apply to sources 

emitting more than 3 tons per year of 

emissions [before consideration of 

controls] on a 12 month rolling basis. 

Various other exemptions apply to 

specific coatings or other processes that

are consistent with the CTG.

Is the criteria for application clear? Clearly stated. Exemptions are clearly identified. 

Malfunction Provisions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response 

Are there any malfunction provisions 

in the rule? 

Rule must specify what exceedances 

may be excused, how the standard is 

to be applied, and who makes the 

determination. 

No.