## 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
, US A--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 Submitta l ____Septemb er 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___La rry.Bruss@Wisconsin.gov___________________________ 

# Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State in corporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this SIP package? Yes _x_ No__ if No explain.

6. The effective date of the re gulation 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 admini strative 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., Admini strative Procedure and Review) in conducting and completing adoption/issuance of the revision?

Yes_x___ No______ Additional Explanation (if necessa ry) For each rule package, DNR followed set rule procedure by developing the rules, requesting authorization from th e Natural Resources Board to go to public hearing, holding a public hearing, addressing comments from the public hearing (i f 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 heari ngs 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 addresse d 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 ru le 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 requirement s where necessary, to ensure emission levels?

Yes_X__ No____ Additional explanation (if n ecessary). The background memos s upplied 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: WISCONSIN6



# 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 discu ssion In general, the rules apply to sourc e emitting more than 3 tons per year o emissions [before consideration of controls] on a 12 month rolling bas i 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 defin e in the definitions section of the rul e or in most cases the definitions existed in previously approved rule s 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 over7

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. Th e 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 ty p 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 conduct8



### 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 processe s and industries, there are no consistent compliance methods among the variou s 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 VO C rule. These Board orders clearly st a 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 som e cases previously approved rules. However, since the rules cover multipl e 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 Response9

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 tha t are consistent with the CTG. Is the criteria for application clear? Clearly stated. Exemptions ar e 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.