# C 5

### i 

# Volume 34,Issue 14 April 2, 2010 Pages 3910-4946

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4281 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1) Heading of the Part : Definitions and General Provisions 2) Code Citation : 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 3) Section Numbers : Proposed Action : 211.101 Amended 211.102 Amended 211.200 New 211.233 New 211.235 New 211.260 New 211.492 New 211.540 New 211.715 New 211.735 New 211.820 Amended 211.825 New 211.954 New 211.965 New 211.1128 New 211.1455 New 211.1560 New 211.1565 New 211.1655 New 211.1700 New 211.1876 New 211.1877 New 211.1878 New 211.1880 Amended 211.2040 New 211.2055 New 211.2200 New 211.2210 Amended 211.2310 Amended 211.2320 New 211.2360 Amended 211.2369 New 211.2415 New 211.2525 New

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4282 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 211.2625 New 211.2825 New 211.2955 New 211.2956 New 211.2958 New 211.2960 New 211.2980 New 211.3095 New 211.3120 New 211.3240 New 211.3505 New 211.3640 New 211.3665 New 211.3760 New 211.3775 New 211.3785 New 211.3820 New 211.3925 New 211.3961 New 211.3967 New 211.3968 New 211.3969 New 211.3975 New 211.4052 New 211.4080 New 211.4220 New 211.4280 New 211.4455 New 211.4540 New 211.4735 New 211.4760 New 211.4765 New 211.4768 New 211.4769 New 211.4895 New 211.4900 New 211.5012 New 211.5061 New 211.5062 Renumbered

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4283 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 211.5090 Amended 211.5400 New 211.5520 New 211.5550 Amended 211.5800 New 211.5890 Amended 211.5985 New 211.5987 New 211.6012 New 211.6015 New 211.6017 New 211.6020 New 211.6063 New 211.6065 New 211.6400 Amended 211.6427 New 211.6460 New 211.6585 New 211.6640 New 211.6670 Amended 211.6690 Amended 211.6720 Amended 211.6740 New 211.6780 New 211.6825 New 211.6885 New 211.7220 New 211.7240 New 4) Statutory Authority : Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Sections 27, 28, and 28.5 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28, and 28.5] 5) A Complete Description of th e Subjects and Issues Involved : The proposed rulemaking is intended to satisfy Illinois' obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan to address requirements under Sections 172 and 182 of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., for sources of volatile organic mate rial (VOM) emissions in areas designated as nonattainment with respect to the ozone Na tional Ambient Air Quality Standard. The United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA) issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for the following Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4284 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Categories: Miscellaneous Metal and Plasti c Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesi ves, and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. In the CTGs, the USEPA recommended control measures that it believes constitute reasonably available control technolo gy for the product categories. The Illinois EPA proposes amending Parts 211, 218 and 219 to implement these recommendations for the Chicago and Metro East nonattainment areas . In Part 211, the Illinois EPA proposes adding 86 new definitions and amending 13 exis ting definitions for terms utilized in proposed amendments to Parts 218 and 219. The Illinois EPA also proposes amending Sections 211.101 and 211.102. 6) Published studies or reports, and sources of underlying data, used to compose this rulemaking : The regulatory proposal included the Illinois EPA's Technical Support Document, which relied on several sources. Copies of the documents the Illinois EPA relied upon are available for review with the Pollution Control Board and are listed below: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Fi berglass Boat Manuf acturing Materials , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Misc ellaneous Industrial Adhesives , 73 Fed. Reg. 58481-91 (Oct. 7, 2008).

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4285 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Na tional Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products , 72 Fed. Reg. 20227-37 (Apr. 24, 2007). 7) Will this rulemaking replace any emer gency rulemaking currently in effect ? No 8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date ? No 9) Does this rulemaking contai n incorporations by reference ? Yes 10) Are there any other proposed rulemakings pending on this Part ? Yes Section Numbers : Proposed Action : Illinois Register Citation : 211.1000 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.1745 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.1878 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.1885 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2355 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2356 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2368 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2615 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2830 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2855 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.2965 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.3215 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.3305 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.3555 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.3705 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.3707 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.4065 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.5335 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.5535 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.5585 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.5860 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.5875 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.5885 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.6405 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.6425 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4286 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 211.6535 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.7150 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 211.7290 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1766; February 5, 2010 11) Statement of Statewide Policy Objectives : This proposed rulemaking does not create or enlarge a State mandate, as defined in Secti on 3(b) of the State Mandates Act. [30 ILCS 805/3(b)]. 12) Time, Place, and Manner in which intere sted persons may comment on this proposed rulemaking : Interested persons may request copi es of the Board's opinion and order by calling the Clerk's office at 312/814-3620 or ma y download copies from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us. The Board will accept written public comment on this proposal for 45 days after the date of publication in the Illinois Register . Comments should refer to Docket R10-20 and be addressed to: Clerk's Office Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 The Board has scheduled hearings accordi ng to the deadlines and for the purposes established by Section 28.5. Each hearing will continue from day-to-day until business is completed: First hearing: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:00 AM Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room, First Floor 1021 N. Grand Ave. East (North Entrance) Springfield, Illinois Second hearing: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 (if necessary) 10:00 AM Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, Illinois

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4287 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Third hearing: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 (if necessary) 10:00 AM Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, Illinois A March 18, 2010 hearing officer order contains additional details concerning participation in the rulemaking. For more in formation contact hearing officer Tim Fox at 312/814-6085 or email at foxt@ipcb.state.il.us. 13) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis : A) Types of small businesses, small muni cipalities and not for profit corporations affected : This rulemaking will impact any small business, small municipality, and not for profit corporation that fa lls within one of the Group IV Product Categories and meets the a pplicability thresholds speci fied in the proposal. B) Reporting, bookkeeping or other pr ocedures required for compliance : The proposed rulemaking requires that the ow ner or operator of a subject source perform emissions monitoring, submit certif ications, complete required tests, and maintain records and make reports as required. C) Types of professional ski lls necessary for compliance : No professional skills beyond those currently required by the exis ting State and federal air pollution control regulations applicable to affected sources will be required. 14) Regulatory Agenda on which this rulemaking was summarized : January 2010 The full text of the Proposed Amendments begins on the next page :

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4335 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1) Heading of the Part : Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area 2) Code Citation : 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218 3) Section Numbers : Proposed Action : 218.105 Amended 218.106 Amended 218.112 Amended 218.204 Amended 218.205 Amended 218.207 Amended 218.208 Amended 218.210 Amended 218.211 Amended 218.212 Amended 218.219 New 218.890 New 218.891 New 218.892 New 218.894 New 218.900 New 218.901 New 218.902 New 218.903 New 218.904 New 4) Statutory Authority : Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Sections 27, 28, and 28.5 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28, and 28.5] 5) A Complete Description of th e Subjects and Issues Involved : The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EP A) proposed this rulemaking to satisfy Illinois' obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan addr essing requirements under Sections 172 and 182 of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq., for sources of volatile organic material (VOM) emissions in areas designated as nonattainment with respect to the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for the following Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product Cate gories: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truc k Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4336 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Adhesives, and Fiberglass Boat Manufactur ing Materials. In the CTGs, the USEPA recommended control measures that it believes constitute reasonably available control technology for the product categories. The Illinois EPA proposes amending Parts 218 to implement such recommendations for the Chicago nonattainment area. Generally, the proposal amends Subpart F of Part 218 regarding VOM limitations for automobile and light-duty truck coatings and miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings . The proposal also adds Subparts II and JJ to Part 218, which set forth new VOM limita tions and requirements for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials and miscellaneous industrial adhesives, respectively. 6) Published studies or reports, and sources of underlying data, used to compose this rulemaking : The regulatory proposal included the Illinois EPA's Technical Support Document, which relied on several sources. Copies of the documents the Illinois EPA relied upon are available for review with the Pollution Control Board and are listed below: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Fi berglass Boat Manuf acturing Materials , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Misc ellaneous Industrial Adhesives , 73 Fed. Reg

. 58481-91 (Oct. 7, 2008).

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4337 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Na tional Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products , 72 Fed. Reg

. 20227-37 (Apr. 24, 2007). 7) Will this rulemaking replace any emer gency rulemaking currently in effect ? No 8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date ? No 9) Does this rulemaking contai n incorporations by reference ? Yes 10) Are there any other rule makings pending on this Part ? Yes Section Numbers : Proposed Action : Illinois Register Citation : 218.106 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.204 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.205 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.207 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.210 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.211 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.212 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.218 New 33 Ill. Reg. 16399; November 20, 2009 218.106 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.181 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.187 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.204 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.205 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.207 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.210 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.211 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.212 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.217 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.401 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.402 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.403 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.404 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.405 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.406 Repeal 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.407 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4338 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 218.408 Repeal 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.409 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.411 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.412 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.413 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.415 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.416 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 218.417 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1791; February 5, 2010 11) Statement of Statewide Policy Objectives : This rulemaking does not create or enlarge a State mandate, as defined in Section 3(b) of the State Mandates Act [30 ILCS 805/3(b)]. 12) Time, Place, and Manner in which intere sted persons may comment on this proposed rulemaking : Interested persons may request copi es of the Board's opinion and order by calling the Clerk's office at 312-814-3620 or ma y download copies from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us. The Board will accept written public comment on this proposal for 45 days after the date of publication in the Illinois Register . Comments should refer to Docket R10-20 and be addressed to: John Therriault Clerk's Office Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 The Board has scheduled hearings accordi ng to the deadlines and for the purposes established by Section 28.5. Each hearing will continue from day-to-day until business is completed: First hearing: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:00 AM Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room, First Floor 1021 N. Grand Ave. East (North Entrance) Springfield, Illinois Second hearing: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4339 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (if necessary) 10:00 AM Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, Illinois Third hearing: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 (if necessary) 10:00 AM Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, Illinois A March 18, 2010, hearing officer order contains additional details concerning participation in the rulemaking. For more in formation contact hearing officer Tim Fox at 312-814-6085 or email at foxt@ipcb.state.il.us. 13) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis : A) Types of small businesses, small muni cipalities and not for profit corporations affected : This rulemaking will impact any small business, small municipality, and not for profit corporation that fa lls within one of the Group IV Product Categories and meets the a pplicability thresholds speci fied in the proposal. B) Reporting, bookkeeping or other pr ocedures required for compliance : The proposed rulemaking requires that the ow ner or operator of a subject source perform emissions monitoring, submit certif ications, complete required tests, and maintain records and make reports as required. C) Types of Professional skills necessary for compliance : No professional skills beyond those currently required by the ex isting state and federal air pollution control regulations applicable to affected sources will be required. 14) Regulatory Agenda on which this rulemaking was summarized : January 2010 The full text of the Proposed Amendments begins on the next page :

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4475 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1) Heading of the Part : Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Metro East Area 2) Code Citation : 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219 3) Section Numbers : Proposed Action : 219.105 Amended 219.106 Amended 219.112 Amended 219.204 Amended 219.205 Amended 219.207 Amended 219.208 Amended 219.210 Amended 219.211 Amended 219.212 Amended 219.219 New 219.890 New 219.891 New 219.892 New 219.894 New 219.900 New 219.901 New 219.902 New 219.903 New 219.904 New 4) Statutory Authority : Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Sections 27, 28, and 28.5 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28, and 28.5] 5) A Complete Description of th e Subjects and Issues Involved : The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EP A) proposed this rulemaking to satisfy Illinois' obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan addr essing requirements under Sections 172 and 182 of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq., for sources of volatile organic material (VOM) emissions in areas designated as nonattainment with respect to the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for the following Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product Cate gories: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truc k Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4476 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Adhesives, and Fiberglass Boat Manufactur ing Materials. In the CTGs, the USEPA recommended control measures that it believes constitute reasonably available control technology for the product categories. The Illinois EPA proposes amending Part 219 to implement such recommendations for the Metro East nonattainment area. Generall y, the proposal amends Subpart F of Part 219 regarding VOM limitations for autom obile and light-duty truck coatings and miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings . The proposal also adds Subparts II and JJ to Part 219, which set forth new VOM lim itations for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials and miscellaneous indus trial adhesives, respectively. 6) Published studies or reports, and sources of underlying data, used to compose this rulemaking : The regulatory proposal included the Illinois EPA's Technical Support Document, which relied on several sources. Copies of the documents the Illinois EPA relied upon are available for review with the Pollution Control Board and are listed below: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Control Techniques Guidelines for Fi berglass Boat Manuf acturing Materials , United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2008. Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Misc ellaneous Industrial Adhesives , 73 Fed. Reg. 58481-91 (Oct. 7, 2008).

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4477 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Na tional Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products , 72 Fed. Reg. 20227-37 (Apr. 24, 2007). 7) Will this rulemaking replace any emer gency rulemaking currently in effect ? No 8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date ? No 9) Does this rulemaking contai n incorporations by reference ? Yes 10) Are there any other proposed rulemakings pending on this Part ? Yes Section Number : Proposed Action : Illinois Register Citation : 219.106 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.204 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.205 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.207 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.210 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.211 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.212 Amend 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.218 New 33 Ill. Reg. 16460; November 20, 2009 219.106 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.181 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.187 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.204 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.205 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.207 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.210 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.211 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.212 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.217 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.401 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.402 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.403 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.404 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.405 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.406 Repeal 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.407 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4478 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 219.408 Repeal 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.409 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.411 Amend 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.412 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.413 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.415 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.416 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 219.417 New 34 Ill. Reg. 1941; February 5, 2010 11) Statement of Statewide Policy Objective : This rulemaking does not create or enlarge a State mandate, as defined in Section 3(b) of the State Mandates Act [30 ILCS 805/3(b)]. 12) Time, Place, and Manner in which intere sted persons may comment on this proposed rulemaking : Interested persons may request copi es of the Board’s opinion and order by calling the Clerk's office at 312/814-3620 or ma y download copies from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us. The Board will accept written public comment on this proposal for 45 days after the date of publication in the Illinois Register 

### . Comments should refer to Docket R10-20 and be addressed to: John Therriault Clerk's Office Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 The Board has scheduled hearings accordi ng to the deadlines and for the purposes established by Section 28.5. Each hearing will continue from day-to-day until business is completed: First hearing: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:00 AM Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room, First Floor 1021 N. Grand Ave. East (North Entrance) Springfield, Illinois Second hearing: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

### ILLINOIS REGISTER 4479 10 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (if necessary) 10:00 AM Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, Illinois Third hearing: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 (if necessary) 10:00 AM Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, Illinois A March 18, 2010, hearing officer order contains additional details concerning participation in the rulemaking. For more in formation contact hearing officer Tim Fox at 312/814-6085 or email at foxt@ipcb.state.il.us. 13) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis : A) Types of small businesses, small muni cipalities and not for profit corporations affected : This rulemaking will impact any small business, small municipality, and not for profit corporation th at falls within one of th e Group IV Product Categories and meets the applicability threshol ds specified in the proposal. B) Reporting, bookkeeping or other pr ocedures required for compliance : The proposed rulemaking requires that the ow ner or operator of a subject source perform emissions monitoring, submit certif ications, complete required tests, and maintain records and make reports as required. C) Types of Professional skills necessary for compliance : No professional skills beyond those currently required by the ex isting state and federal air pollution control regulations applicable to affected sources will be required. 14) Regulatory Agenda on which this rulemaking was summarized : January 2010 The full text of the Proposed Amendments begins on the next page :

# C 6CO-eHA1R: SEN. MAGGIE CROTTY CQ-CHAIA: REP. ANGELO ·SKIP· SAVIANO EXECUTIVE D1RECWR: VICKI THOMAS 

### JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTIUTIVE RULES ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SEN. J. BRADLEy BURZYNSKI SEN. RANDAll HULTGREN SEN. MATTIE HUNTER SEN. DAN RUTHERFORD SEN. IRA SILVERSTEIN REP. JOHN FRITCHEY REP. lOU tANG REP. DAVID MILLER REP. DONALD MOFFI1T REP. ROSEMARY MULLIGAN



### TO:

FROM:

DATE: 700 STRATTON BUILDING SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62708 217nS5-2254 

# D ORIGINAL**MEMO~NDUM**

Tanner Girard, Chairman Pollution Control Board Vicki Thomas Executive Director 3/30/2010

## ~e:ce9VED '-LEAK'S OFFIce



## MAR 3 I 

## 2010 ·:HATE OF ILLINOIS**'>Olivri0~1** 

### Control Board

RE: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218) 34 Ill. Reg. -4335

- 4/2/10

Pursuant to Section 5-40(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 

### lCAR is requesting from your agency an analysis of the economic and budgetary effects of the above-referenced rulemaking. The analysis can be completed using the standard JCAR economic impact form and can be transmitted to JCAR as soon as it is ready, but at least by the time the agency submits its Second Notice on this rulemaking. JCAR staff will contact you if they need any further economic information not covered by your submission of the form. The information from the economic and budgetary analysis will be presented to the members ofJCAR as part of the staff's review ofthis issue. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact us at 217/785-2254.

VT:DC:rm cc: John TherriaultEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: VfCKI THOMAS 

### JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY C0-CHAIR: SEN. MAGGIE CROnY CO-CHAIR: REP. ANGELO ·SKlp· SAVIANO 

# (JORIGINAL

700 STRATION BUILDING SPRINGFIELD, ILUNOIS 62706 217nS5-2254 SEN, J. BRADLEY BURZYNSKI SEN. RANDALL HULTGREN SEN. MATTIE HUNTER SEN. DAN RUTHERFORD SEN. IRA SILVERSTEIN REP. JOHN FRITCHEY REP. LOU l.ANG REP. DAVID MILLER REP, DONALD MOFFlTI REP ROSEMARY MULLIGAN



### TO:

FROM:

DATE: MEMORANDUM

Tanner Girard, Chainnan Pollution Control Board Vicki Thomas Executive Director 3/30/2010 

### RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE



## MAR 3 ! 2010 STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### Pollution Control 

### Board

RE: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Metro East Area (35 TIl. Adm. Code 219) 34 Ill. Reg. 4475

- 4/2110



### Pursuant to Section 5-40( c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, JCAR is requesting from your agency an analysis of the economic and budgetary effects of the above-referenced rulemaking. The analysis can be completed using the standard JCAR economic impact fonn and can be transmitted to JCAR as soon as it is ready, but at least by the time the agency submits its Second Notice on this rulemaking. JCAR staff will contact you if they need any further economic infonnation not covered by your submission of the form. The information from the economic and budgetary analysis will be presented to the members of JCAR as part of the staffs review of this issue. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact us at 2171785-2254.



### VT:DC:nn cc: John Therriault

# C 7

# dCQOlilinolS Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Pat Quinn Gt'lWrIIQr

April I, 2010

Mr. G. Tanner Girard Acting Chairman I1linois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Ave. East Springfield, 1L 62794-9274
Dear Chairman Girard: Warren RiblC)' Director

1 am in receipt of your request that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (hereafter "Department") do an economic impact study, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5127(h), on a proposal entitled Reasonablv Available Control Technology WCT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer 

### & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219 (Board Docket R10-20).
At this time, the Department is unable to undertake such an economic impact study. Therefore, 1 must respectfully decline your request.

Sinyrelx;

### fA..../~ 

# - Warren Ribley '------ Director I1linois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

Internet Addreu httpJIwww.commerce.sa.te.1l.us 620 Eut Adams 5tTeet Springfield,lllil'M)fs 62701·1615 2171782·7500 TOo: 8001785-6055 James R. Thompson Center 100 Wert Randolph Strttt. Suite 3--400 Chicago. Illinois 6<M01.3219 JI2J8H·7179 TOO: aoomS40ss 23M West M,i1n, Suite II B Marlon, illinois 62959-1180 6181997 .... 394 TOO: 8001185·6055

# C 8

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

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

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

### ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) ) ) 

### ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### R10-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

NOTICE To: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, 1l1inois 60601-3218 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

- copies of which are herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:Cl'\a: I/y2..

# tJtt~1 Dana Vetlerhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel DATED: April 15, 2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Boxl9276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

.BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

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

### CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### RlO-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS
My name is Rory Davis. 1 am an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air Quality Planning Section, Air Pollution Control Division of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's ("IIIinois EPA" or "Agency") Bureau of Air. I have been employed by the Agency in the Air Quality Planning Section for four and one half years. Prior to that, I worked at the Illinois Department of Transportation for four years as an Engineering Technician. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Computational Physics as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Illinois State University. I also have a Masters degree in Engineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago. My graduate studies consisted of an interdisciplinary program involving coursework from the Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering fields with a concentration on Environmental Engineering.

In my current position with the Agency my duties include providing technical support for regulatory proposals. I will be providing testimony regarding the proposed rule regulating Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV.
Proposed Regulation for Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV The Illinois EPA has proposed amendments to minois Administrative Code Parts 211,218, and 219 to regulate Group IV consumer and commercial products in order to reduce emissions of volatile organic material ("VOM") from the affected categories, and to meet Clean Air Act requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology ("RACT") standards for VOM emissions in the Chicago and Metro-East St. LOllis Non-attainment Areas (''NAA''). The

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, 

### April 15, 2010

proposed amendments regulate emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, automobile and light duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. These amendments to the current regulations will aid in the attainment and the maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone in the NAAs, and the anlendments are both technically feasible and economically reasonable.

The proposed amendments were drafted to regulate the four previously mentioned affected

source categories in a manner consistent with Control Techniques Guidelines ("CTG") issued by the United States Envirorunental Protection Agency ("USEPA"). The lllinois EPA has relied upon the research and analysis of the USEPA in the CTGs for the limits and work practices in the proposed amendments, as well as for analysis of the technical feasibility and economic impact of the regulations.
Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings The proposed amendments regarding miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings are intended to reduce YOM emissions trom coatings applied to surfaces that include fabricated metal products, molded plastic parts, small and large fann machinery, commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure craft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, business machines, laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel drums, metal pipes, and

numerous other industrial and household products.

The proposed amendments include three methods of compliance to provide sources with flexibility in complying with the regulations. Sources may comply with the YOM limits by using low- YOM coatings, by a combination oflow- YOM coatings and add-on controls, or by using add-on controls to achieve an overall capture and control efficiency of 90%. Sources are also required to comply with work practice standards. Analysis eonducted by the US EPA for the CTG for this source category indicates that there are compliant products or feasible control options for compliance for each of the coating categories regulated by the proposed amendments.

2

### Electronic 

### Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

Regulations for Automobile and Light Duty Tmck Assembly Coatings Thc proposed amendments for automobile and light duty truck assembly coatings are intended to reduce YOM emissions from coatings applied to new automobile or light-duty tmck bodies or body parts for those vehicles. The proposed YOM limits for this source category are specified by the assembly coating process and for various miscellaneous materials used at these coating facilities.

, The limits and work practices proposcd reflect current practices in the industry that the USEPA considers to be RACT, and were supplied to the USEPA by member and non-member companies ofthe Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in 2008 as part of the analysis performed for the erG on the source category.
Regulations for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives The proposed amendments for miscellaneous industrial adhesives are intended to reduce YOM emissions from manufacturing and repair facilities using these adhesives for joining surfaces in assembly and constmction of a large variety of products.

Similar to the proposed-limits for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, the proposed amendments for miscellaneous industrial adhesives include three methods of compliance in order to provide flexibility to sources. Sources may comply with the YOM limits by using low- YOM adhesive products, by a combination oflow- YOM adhesives and add-on controls, or by using add-on controls to achieve an overall capture and control efficiency of 85%. The proposed amendments also subject sources to application method limitations and work practice requirements. Analysis conducted by the USEPA for the CTG for this source category indicates that there are compliant products or feasible control options for compliance for each of the adhesive categories and processes regulatcd by the proposed amendments.

3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

Regulations for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Matcrials The proposed amendments for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials are intended t9 reduce YOM emissions from materials used for manufacturing fiberglass hulls or decks for boats, or from sources that construct molds for the manufacture of fiberglass boat hulls or decks.

The proposed amendments provide sources flexIbility in compliance by including three methods of compliance. Sources may choose to use lower-YOM materials, an emissions averaging option, or use an option that allows for add-on controls to reduce YOM emissions to a level consistent with the overall emission limit from the averaging option. The proposal also requires that sources comply with limitations regarding YOM-containing cleaning solutions, as well as with work practice requirements for mixing containers.
Analysis conducted by the USEPA indicates that the proposed limits are feasible for existing

sources. However, it should be noted that minois currently has no affected sources in the NAAs 

### in IlJinois, and therefore the limits could only be applied to new sources in this category in the future. USEPA also states in the CTG that the limits reflect the current industry norms for this

source category due to a NESHAP for the category.

The Proposed Rule is Economically Reasonable The costs associated with the proposed amendments are based upon analysis by the USEPA in its CTGs for the affected categories. These analyscs are discussed in greater detail in the technical support document for the proposed amendments and the eTGs for the specific affected source categories. These affected source categories will be addressed individually for the purposes of this testimony.

Economic Impact of Amendments for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings The USEPA has estimated the average cost per source for the proposed regulation to be $10,500. This figure can be used to estimate a statewide cost for the III identified potentially affected

sources in Illinois to be $1,165,500. USEPA has also estimated the cost per ton of YOM reduced to be $1758 per tOll. Illinois EPA considers these estimates to be reasonable for the control of YOM.

4

### Electronic 

### Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

Economic mpact of Amendments for Automobile and Light Duty Tmck Assembly Coatings The USEPA estimates that there will be no additional cost for the implementation of the control techniques guidelines for auto and light-duty tmck assembly coating. Affected sources have reduced YOM emissions from coaling operations in response to the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS''), the 2004 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (UNESHAP") for this category, and various State rules. USEPA also estimates that the additional work practices recommended in the CTG will result in a net cost savings to sources, as .implementing these work practices reduces the amount of coating and cleaning materials used.

Economic Impact of Amendments for Miscellaneous Jndustrial Adhesives The USEPA has estimated the average cost per source for the proposed regulation to be $2,300. This figure can be used to estimate a statewide cost for the 12 identified potentially affected

sources in lllinois to be $40,272. USEPA has also estimatcd the cost per ton ofVOM reduced to be $265 per ton. Illinois EPA considers these estimates to be reasonable for the control ofVOM.

Economic mpaet of Amendments for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials Because there are currently no sources in Il1inois that will be affected by the proposed regulation ofthis source category, there will be no associated economic impact for sources in Illinois. The eTG for the category states that the USEPA expects that sources in this category will incur little if any increased costs due to the control recommendations.

The Proposed Rule is Technically Feasible 

### In nearly all aspects of the drafting of the rule the Illinois EPA has relied upon the analysis of the USEPA to determine whether the limits in the CTGs and the proposed amendments are technically feasible. Upon rcview of the eTGs, l1Jinois EPA concurs with the USEPA's analysis and finds that the proposed limits are technically fcasible for sources in lIlinois. In many cases the limits proposed have been in place in other regions of the U.S. for a number of years. In other cases, such as for automobile and light duty truck assembly coatings and fiberglass boat manufacturing material, the proposed limits are in line with what USEPA considers to be current industry standards for the source categories. 

### In these cases the YOM limits reflect what is

5

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

considered to be common levels of emissions in these source categories due to existing regulation such as a NESHAP.
Summary of Testimony 

### It is the position of the Illinois EPA that the proposed YOM limits for the four source categories affected arc feasible, and that in most cases flexibility in compliance options has been provided to sources. Further, the economic impact that the proposed amendments will have on affected

sources is reasonable for achieving RACT control ofVOM, and cost effective on a per ton basis for control ofVOM in the Illinois ozone non-attainment areas. In regard to both the feasibility of controls and their economic impact, the Illinois EPA relied heavily on the analysis of the USEPA that was conducted for the purposes ofthe CTGs for these source categories, and generally

concurs with their recommendations.



### 6

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTJON CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AV AlLABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 

### ILL. ADM. CODE 21I, 218, 

### and 219 ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

### RJO-20 

### (Rulemaking-Air)

CERTIFICATE 0:1<' SERVICE 

### I, 

### the undcrsigned, an attorney, statc that I have served electronically thc attached TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS upon the following pcrson: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. 

### Thompson Ccnter 100 

### Wcst Randolph, Suite 11-500 

### Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 

### and electronically to the following persons: SEE ATT ACHED SERVICE LlST.



### ILLINOIS E},'VIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY

## BY:-G~:Q,.ji#{jti1J.'1II'q Dana V 

### cttcrhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: April 15,2010
1021 

### N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 

### Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, April 15, 2010

Service List RI0-20
Timothy 

### 1. Fox Hearing Officer l1Iinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 6060 I foxt@ipcb.state.il.us Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel Illinois Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, 1L 62702-1271 virginia.yang@illinois.gov Matthew Dunn, Chief Division of Environmental Enforcement Office ofthe Attorney General 69 W. Washington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, 1L 60602 mdunn@atg.state.iLus Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. 

### Rios Hodge Dwyer 

### & Driver 3150 Roland Ave. P.O. Box 5776 Springfield, 1L 62705-5776 khodge@hddattomeys.com mrios@hddattorneys.com Alec M. Davis General Counsel lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, 1L 6270 I adavis@ierg.org Heidi E. Hanson Podlewski 

### & Hanson, P.c. 4721 Franklin Ave. Suite 1500 Western Springs, 1L 60558-1720 heh70@hotmail.com

# C 91

1 2 3 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

4
5
6
7 8 9 10 IN THE MATTER OF: ) REASONABLY AVAILABLE ) CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC ) MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: ) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ) 35 ILL. ADM CODE 211, ) 218 AND 219 ) RIO-20 (Rulemaking

- Air)

11 THE RULEMAKING HEARING BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
12 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD was held and taken in the 13 above-entitled matter before Ann Marie Hollo, CSR, RPR, RMR, 14 State of Illinois, at 9:00 o'clock A.M., on April 28, 2010, 15 at the Illinois Pollution Control Board Hearing Room, 1021 16 North Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois 62794,
17 pursuant to notice. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Keefe Reporting Company 11 North 44th Street Belleville, Illinois 62226 (618)277-0190 (800)244-0190

Keefe Reporting Company (618) 277-01902

1 APPEARANCES: 2 Timothy J. Fox, Esq., Hearing Officer 3 Illinois Pollution Control Board Members: G. Tanner Giratd, Ph.D. 4 Thomas Johnson, Esq. Anand Rao, Board's Technical Staff Member 5 Andrea S. Moore Carrie Zalewski, Esq. 6 Hodge, Dwyer & Driver 7 3150 Roland Avenue P.O. Box 5776 8 Springfield, Illinois 62705 By: Monica T. Rios, Esq. and Katherine D. Hodge, Esq. 9 On behalf of S & C Electric Company 10 Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 East Adams Street 11 Springfield, Illinois 62701 By: Alec M. Davis, Esq. 12 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 13 1021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 14 By: Dana Vetterhoffer, Esq. 15 ALSO PRESENT: Marie Tipsord, Esq. 16 17 18 19 20
21 I N D E X WITNESS PAGE RORY DAVIS

Questions by Mr. Alec Davis 10, 13, 15, 29 Questions by Mr. Rao 12, 14, 19, 23, 26, 27, 30, 39, 43 Questions by Brd. Member Johnson 13, 14 Questions by Ms. Rios 18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 47 Questions by Brd. Member Dr. Girard 25 Questions by Hearing Officer Fox 38, 43, 45 E X H I B I T S 22 23 24 25 NUMBER Exhibit 1 MARKED 8

Keefe Reporting Company (618) 277-0190 ADMITTED 8

# C 10

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 4,2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

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

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### RIO·20 (Rulemaking-Air)



### NOTICE
To: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. 

### Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601·3218 

### SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board the REoUEST FOR HEARING of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, copies of which are herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY:~dA~ ;na Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: May 4, 2010
1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 

### 4,2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MA TIER OF: REASONABLY AV AILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV 

### CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211,218, and 219 ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

### ) 

### RI0-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

REOUEST FOR HEARING 

### The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, by its attorney, and pursuant to 35 Ill. 

### Adm. Code 102.304(e) and 415 .ILCS 5/28.5, requests that a second hearing be held as currently scheduled on May 19, 2010, regarding the above rulemaking.
Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By: 

# em ha. 

# r!dzbdf#;ju Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: May 4,2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, ]L 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

1

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 4, 2010

. BEFORE 

### THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

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

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) RlO-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached REQUEST FOR HEARING upon the following person: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, llIinois 60601 -3218
and electronically to the following persons: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY:Ckh>--~ Dana Velterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division ofLcgal Counsel

DATED: May 4, 2010
1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- 

### Received, Clerk's Office, May 4,2010



### Service List RIO-20
Timothy 

### J. Fox Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 6060 1 foxt@ipcb.state.il.us Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

### One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702-1271 virginia.yang@illinois.gov Matthew Dunn, Chief Division of Environmental Enforcement Office of the Attorney General 69 W. Washington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 mdunn@atg.state.il.us Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios Hodge Dwyer 

### & Driver 3150 Roland Ave. ·P.O. Box 5776 Springfield, 

### IL 62705-5776 khodge@hddattorneys.com mrios@hddattorneys.com Alec M. Davis General Counsel lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62701 adavis@ierg.org Heidi E. Hanson Podlewski 

### & Hanson, P.C. 4721 Franklin Ave. Suite 1500 Western Springs, IL 60558-1720 heh70@hotmai1.com

# C 11BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN TIfE MA TIER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACI) FOR VOLATILE ORGANlC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL. PRODUCTS: PROrOSED AMENDMENTS TO 3S ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 )**~eCE~VED** CLERK'S OFFICE



## MAY 052010 STATE OF IWNOIS Pollutioo 

### Control 

### Board

RIO·20 (Rolemaking-Air) REOUEST FOR 

### HEARING The American Coatings Association, through its senior counsel, and pursuant to 3S 

### Ill. Adm. Code I 02.304( c) and 415 ILeS 5128.5, requests that a second nearing be held 

### as currently scheduled on May 19,2010, regarding the above mlemaking. RIQ-ZO (Rulemaking-Air) REQUEST FOR INCLUSION AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN RULEMAKING The American Coatings Association, through its senior counsel, requests that it be included 

### as an interested part" in Rulemaking RJO-20 and slates its intention to provide testimony at the May 19,2010 hearing.

. RIQ-20 (RuJemaking-Air) CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE TO OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES The American Coatings Association, through its senior counsel. certifies tltat it will provide this document 

### to the other interested parties 

### by way of e-mail. DATED: May 5, 2010 American Coatings .o\ssociation 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, 

### NW Washington, DC 201)05 202-462-6272

t • d 6toSBZStoZOZ

# C 12MAY 072010 STATE OF Pollution Control Board NPCA(FSCT Comments

on the Inclusion

of South Coast Rule 11061 as RACT for Coaling
of Pleasure Craft (and Associated Parts and Products) into FInal CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Respectfully submitted

in connection with Illinois Proposal

to adopt the Pleasure Craft CTG. Case Number R2010-020 On May 7,2010 Sell

L iior Counsel— American Coatings Association “iselloaint.org 202-462-6272

ex: 252 September

14, 2009 Introduction We do not agree with the EPA’s recommendation

that South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1106.1 (‘Rule

I 106.1”)

is suitable for consideration

as Reasonably Achievable Control Technolcgy (RACT) for the coating
of pleasure craft (andlor associated parts and products)

in the

f nal Control Technique Guideline
for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts published

by the EPA in September 2008 (the ‘CTG’). NPCAIFSCT companies manufacture

the vast majority
of the coatings sold
in the pleasure craft coating industry and has
a long record
of working with USEPA
on providing marine coatings technology information

in USEPA’s efforts
to develop VOC and HAPs standards
for the marine and pleasure craft industry. Most recently, member companies have provided the Agency with exte risive current coatings information

in the development

of a NESHAP
for pleasure craft coatings. This data might be usefully examined

to help determine the RACT VOC recommended CTG standard
for the coatings

as well. The CTG program

as developed and implemented

by the EPA is intended

to identify VOC emission control techniques and technology that meet the criteria
of the federal Clean Air Act’s “Reasonably Available Control Technology” (RACT).

A CTG represents EPA’s recornmendatior

s to be adopted
by the States

itt their federally-mandated
State Implementation Plans (SIPs). As such, CTGs have,a long tradition

of careful selection

of existing technologies only after extensive review. Traditionally
this process has sought the views of the industry
or sector
to which the standard would apply. The propoCed tscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CIG did not mention pleasure craft surface coating operations. This additional recommendation appeared first in the Final CTG. Compare the Proposed Determination
and Draft CTG
in the Federal Register

at: http:llwv/.elaovIttriIatw/1 53e/qen/fr14iy0&pdf

(no mention

of pleasure craft) to the Final Determination
and final CTG
in the Federal Register

at: htt:llwwwepa.qovIttntatwR83e!gen1fr07oc08.Pdf

(pleasure craft
is discussed
for first time). Thus industry
as a whole did not have the opportunity

to raise issues of concern about the CTG identifying Rule 1106.1 from the SCAQMD

as a national RACT standard. 1 i SS2Si.202

HDdF.J WU88 0102 tO ReWIn reconstructing events, the introduction

of the pleasure craft standard

in the final document occurred

in part

I ecause
of EPA

s concern that pleasure craft coatings might otherwise

be subject
to the very low VOC limits set generally
for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
in the CTG (even loverthan those specified

in Rule 1106.1). Additionally

it received

a comment after issuing the proposed CTG from

a yacht coatings manufacturer, which requested that separate VOC limits be set for pleasure craft coatings using Rule 1108.1’s coatings categories. The manufacturer apparently
did not mean
to endorse the rule’s limits —only its categories

of coatings- and has sent

a clarification

to EPAto that effect. We wish to make clear that our comments here are not intended

to criticize the USEPA

in any way. The Agency has traditionally reached out to industry

ri developing CTGs and did so here as well. We have contacted EPA regarding our concern and have offered

to work with the Agency

to dei,elop recommendations

for
a national RACT recommendation

that is economically reasonable
and technologically feasible. As our comments
will demonstrate,

the Rule 1106.1 limits do not represent RACT for the national pleasure craft coatings industry. As a technical matter, Rule 1106.1 was developed

on the basis of the “best available retrofit control technology” (BARCT) under the California Clean Air Act, which

is more stringent than the national RACT standard.

As characterized

by California
Air Resources Board staff documents 1 : “BARCT

is a state version
of RACT, although

it has stringency more akin to BACT fbest available control technology”]

as defined
by the federal Clean Air Act. BARCT is required under certain conditions

in California districts having moderate, serious, severe, orextreme

air pollution

as defined
by Section 40921.5, Chapter
10, Part

1, Division
26 of the Health and Safety Code.” While

a long-lived BARCT standard may evolve into

a national RACT standard with the passage

of time and with Industry effort to improve technology and application techniques, this has not occurred with 1106.1 standards.

As will be shown later in this document, Industry has made significant efforts
to develop lower VOC coatings for the pleasure craft industry. However,

a review
of the history
of Rule 1106.1 itself demonstrates
that the SCAQMD had to revise the rule amer its adoption

to allow an additional two-year period
to comply with higher VOC limits when

it was demonstrated
that the limits originally mandated were technologically infeasible 2 . These limits became effective

in 2001, and as we will discuss later in this document,
the pleasure craft industry responded

in the extended Iwo-year period
to ‘extract itself from the SCAQMD’. This document explains why we consider Rule 1106.1
to be unsuitable
for reference

as RACT, and highlights the impact
its implementation

by non-attainment states and areas will have on the economy and pleasure craft building and surface coating industry. In light of the siiificant changes that the EPA made
to the draft CTG as published

in the final CTG, we would like to use this document

to suggest

a proposal which we believe

is much more economically reasonable and technologically feasible. Unsuitability

of South Coast AQMO Rule 1106.1
as RACT The following key points explain why South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1

is unsuitable
for consideration

as RACT by ozone non-attainment states and areas: For more details see http://www.arb.ca .govlbactldocslssrcahfornia.htm2 For more information use the following link httoJfwww.aQmd.ov/hb/1999/99012a.htmI

2 689fr2O

li3dlJ WH8t.:8 OtO LOBW1.TheVOClinitswithinRule1106.1aretoorestrictivetoallowcoatingmanufacturerstoproduceproductswhichmeetbothtechnicalandcustomerrequirements.TheindustrydoesnotcurentlyhavecompliantcoatingstosellinstatesandareaswheretheywillberequiredifgtiidanceintheGIGonpleasurecraftcoatingoperationsIsfollowed.Rule1106.1hashadanegativeeffectonSouthCoast’spleasurecraftbusinesssinceitwasintroducedin1992.Inthe1970’sand80’s,Californiawasconsideredbymanytobethepleasurecraftbuildingcapitaloftheworld,withthefollowingpleasurecraftbuildersoperatingthere:CatalinaYachts,ColumbiaYachts,IslanderYachts,CapitalMarine,CorsairMarine,ErlcsonYachts,LagunaYachts,Westsaii,PacificSeacraft,BillLeeYachts,PacKcBoats,MooreBros,Express,andWildernessBoats.TheintroductionofpleasurecraftrulessuchasRule1106.1intoAirQualityDistrictsliketheSouthCoasthasbeenapivotalfactortothesebuilderseithermovingoutoftheseareasintootherpartsoftheUS,ortoothercountries.Atonetime,75%ofCatalinaYachtsproductioncameoutoftheCaliforniaplantbasedinSouthCoastdistrict,butthishasnowbeentransferredtoanewersitebasedInFlorida(wheretherearecurrentlynopleasurecraftcoatingVOCrestrictions).EricsonYachtshasundergonereorganizationandnowoperatesasPacificSeacraftInNorthCarolina.CorsairMarine,whichatonetimeoperatedoutofSanDiego,hasnowmovedproductiontoaplantinVietnam.TheyachtconstructionbusinesshaslargelydiedoutorrelocatedtoneighbouringdistrictsorstateswhichhavenopleasurecraftVOCrules.Thepleasurecraftsurfacecoatingindustryisamobileone,andpleasurecraft(especiallythelargerones)candockanywhereintheUSorevenaroundtheworld.Accordingtothe2002Census(USCensusBureau:NAICScodes336612and336611),theBoatBuildingandRepairindustryintheUShadarevenueof$20billionandemployedapproximately140,000pele.Since2002theindustryhasbeeningeneraldecline—losingshareandstatustonon-USsuppliers.ThereisaveryrealconcernthatCalifornia’sexperiencewillberepeated.elsewhereifthewideradoptionofRule1106.1goesahead.Thiswouldbedisastrousfcrthegeneraleconomy.2.ThepleasurecraftcoatingsindustryhasbeengiveninsufficienttimetoproducecompliantcoatingswhkhmeettheperformanceandaestheticrequirementsofpleasurecraftownersandmeetthepleasurecraftcoatinglimitsofRule1106.1beforeozonenoncompliantstatesadopttheruleIntoStateImplementationPlans(SIP).Becauseofthelikelylackofcompliantproducts,itisconceivablethatotherstatesforcedtoimplementRule1106.1willfindthemselvesinasimilarpositiontothatofSouthCoastwithadecliningpleasurecraftcoatingbusinesscontributingtodwindlingeconomyandincreasedunemployment.3.SouthCoastAQMDhasseriousozoneproblemsandhasbeenallocatedtheozoneclassificationof‘Severe-I7’bytheEPA.Inordertoreducetheextentofitsozoneproblem,SouthCoastAQMDhasimplementedaseriesofVOCrules(includingRule1106.1)whicharethemostrestrictiveintheworld.TableIcontainsdifferentozone‘designvalues’fortheozonenon-attainmentareasInastateinwhichpleasurecraftcoatingbusinessiscurrentlythriving(Florida)andfromSanBernardLnoinSouthCoastAQMDinC!ifomnia.ThevaluesaretakenfromasamplefromtheEPA’sdocumenttitled‘DesignVali.asbyCountyfor2008OzoneStandard’3.ThetableshowsthattheozoneprobleminSouthCoastissignificantlyworse,between46—57%higher,thaninFlorida.Table1-OzoneDesignValuesfor2008ozonestandardtakenfrommonitoredairqualitydatabetweentheyearsof2004and2006Fohowthislinkfarfulltablehttp:Ilwww.eop,pov/pirlpzoneppllutionlodfsl200803deslrinvalues20042006.adf3GB9DHDdWWH8t,:8OIOLORewDesignValue.Ippm(threeyearaverageusedtocomparelevelof2009ozonestandard(O.O7Sppm)toComparisontoSanStateCountydeterminecomplianceBernardinoCaliforniaSanBernardino0.121-FloridaBay0.07855%lessFloridaDuval0.07757%lesSFloridaEscambla0.08346%lessFloridaHillsborough0.08051%less4.EvenintheStateofCalifornia,onlyfiveotherDistrictshavefoundtheneedtointroduceruleswhichnegulatetheVOCcontentofpleasurecraftcoatings,asfollow:AntelopeValleyAQMDRule1106-1MojaveDesertAQMDRule1106VenturaCountyAPCDRule74-24-1SanDiegoAPCDRule67.18BayAreaAQMDRule8-43Someoftheseruleshaveexclusionstatementstopreventapplicabilitytosmallboatownerslusrs,i.e.theDo-It-Yourself(DIY)market.MojaveDesertAQMDRule1106providesanexemptionforfacilitieswhoserateperdayofcoatingueislessthanonegallon,includinganyVOC-containirigmaterialsaddedtotheoriginalcoatingassuppliedbythemanufacturer.BayAreaAQMDRule8-43providesanexclusionforcoatingofpleasurecraftorcommercialfishingvesselsusingcoatingspurchasedincontainersofonegallonorless.SanDiegoCountyAPCDRule67.18providesanexemptionfornon-commercialmarinecoatingoperationsperformedbyindividualsattheirpersonalresidenceforthepurposeofcoatingtheirownpleasurecraft(s).Rule1106.1was developedtotackleseriousozonenon-attainmentinSouthCoastAQMDinCaliforniabysignificantlyrestrictingtheVOClevelsofpleasurecraftcoatingsandisnotnecessaryforadoptioninnon-attainmentareaswhichEPAclassifiesas‘Moderate’likethoseinFlorida:thatis,themajorityofnon-attainmentareasnationwide.ThereforeweconsiderthatadoptingRule1106.1asanationalRACTrecommendationisexcessive,asitwasdevelopedtoaddresssituationswherenon-attainmentareasaredefinedas‘Severe’.5.SCAQMDRule1106.1itselfrequiresanadditionalspecialitycategorytoallowforrecentregulatorydevelopmentsresultingfromtheInternationalMaritimeOrganisation(IMO)AritifoulingSystemsConvention(2001).Furtherinformationonthiscanbefoundinthe‘IndustryPrcposal’sectionofthisdocument.CurrentSituationThe industrycottinuestoworkto developtowerVOCcoatingsfortheUSpleasurecraftmarket.However,highsolidsandwaterbasedtechnologieshavenotbeenimmediatelysuccessfulinprovidingcompliantcoatingswhichalsomeettechnicalandcustomerdemands.Coatingmanufacturerswillnothavecompleteportfoliosofcompliantproductstomeetthe4GB9t’DHDdWWHBt’BorotoRewVOClimitsofRi.de1106.1tomarketbythetimeStateswillhaveupdatedtheirSIPSandestablishedcompliancedatesfortherequirementsforpleasurecraftsurfacecoatingoperations.Inaddition,end-usecustomerswillhaveinsufficienttimetoadapttheirworkingpracticestoacccmrriodatenewcoatingproducts—oneofthestrategiesadvocatedbytheCTG.ThepleasurecraftcoatingsmarketisaglobalonewithincreasingcompetitionfromAsiaandEurope.Theprofessionalmarketsegmentis growingyearbyyear.andnonemoresothanthelargeyachtriarketdealinginvesselsgreaterthan80’LengthOverAll(LOA)orthe‘superyachtmarcetasitiscommonlyreferredto.ThefollowingfiguresillustratetherelativesizeandstateoftheUSsuperyachtbusiness:2008stistiosshowtenUSyardssigningupforoveronemileofsuperyachthuIJ(1903yards)worthofneworders,withanaveragehullvalueestimatedatonemilliondollarspercubicmeter.•USbuildersshareoftheglobalsuperyachtmarketwas15%in2008,comparedto17.8%In2007,and19.4°Join2006•Superyachtdeliveriesin2007were23fromtheUS,comparedto121fromEuropeOfequalimporta-ceistherefit/repairmarketsectorintheUS.Thegrowthrateoftherepairmarket(asseenoverthelast10years)hasbeenessentialtotheNorthAmericanpleasurecraftindustry.Someregionsandstatesrelyheavilyontheincomethatthepleasurecraftindustryprovides.Laws,regulations,and!orboatyardpracticesthatpotentiallylimitthecompetitiveedgecouldseriouslyin,pacttheregionalandevennationaleconomybydeterringforeignanddomesticclientele.IfboatscannotbecompletedtotheaestheticstandardsdemandedinNorthAmerica(duetolimitationsonproductsand/orapplications),itishighlylikelythatbusinessinthissector,includingcharterbusiness,willbelosttoSouthAmerica,MexicoandEurope.Thisriskisalsopresentwhenmakingdecisionsthatwillnarrowthechoiceandabilittoeffectivelypaintandsupplypleasurecraftrelatedprojects.Floridaisa goodexampleofhowimportanteconomicallythepleasurecraftsectorsare.TheFloridamarketreliesoncompetitiverates,accesstoskilledlaborresources,andtheabilitytoservicebothdorresticandforeignvessels.TheBroward-Dade-PalrnBeach“Tn-CountyRegion’hasremainedatTheforefrontotsuperyachtserviceandrepairsector,whereindustrygrowthhasdoubedinthelasttenyears.ThedirecteconomicimpactofsuperyachtrepairandmaintenanceprojectsatlocalboatyardsintheTn-CountyRegionwasestimatedtobe$219.8milliondrIng2006.Between1997and2007,thefinancialcontrIbutionofthesuperyachtrefitsectorinFloridacanbesummarizedasfollows4;•48%ofroutinemaintenanceprojectsinTn-Countyboatyardswerefromnon-U.S.-basedvesselsduring2006alone.OverhalfofmajoroverhaulprojectswerecompletedonforeignyachtsatTn-Countyboatyards.•Eachofthe1400superyachtsservicedbyTn-Countyboatyardsin2006supportedfivefull-timepersonnelpervesselatareaboatyardsandrelatedindustries,supportimganestimated7300jobs.•Anestimated$204millioninsuperyachtcharterfeeswerepaidviaTn-Countycharterfirmswhidhreceivedcommissionsofapproximately$30.6millionin2006:twicethatof1997.•One164-footchartervesselwillhavedirectimpactonaregionwithexpendituresofapproxiriiately$2.6million.Thedirectimpact,ifoccurringintheTn-Countyregion,wouldresultinatotaleconomicimpactof$5.1millionfromachartersuperyacht’soperation.Source:Growth,currentactivityandEconomicImpactsci’MegaYachtsinSouthFlorida1997—2007.T.JMurray&AssoDiates,preparedonbehalfofMarineIndustriesAssocialioriofSouthFloridaandtheBrowardAlliance56B9t,OHDdF.JWU6t’ROLotoRWAdd to this some 20,000 boats manufactured

or repairedlrefitted yearly

in the US outside the superyacht sectr, and

it is clear that

a multitude

of facilities could be affected
by the pleasure craft coating gukiance

in the CTG. As with many other industries,
the US pleasure craft industry

is suffering

a downturn due to the current economic climate. The smaller boat industry has been sniflcantIy’ affected, with one major company quoting sales of boats down by as much as 64%. The restrictive nature of the VOC limits contained within Rule 1106.1 will significantly limit any competitive advantages

for US pleasure craft buIlders with cost, technical, and aesthetic requirements severely compromised. Setting Rule 1106.1
as RACT for pleasure craft coatings

in the CTG will adversely effect the pleasure craft coatings industry

in ozone non-attainment areas, resulting

in increases

in unemployment

as the industry struggles

to comply. Thisputs additional pressure
on an industry already

in decline

in the US, as more business moves
to Europe and Asia. In Europe legislation

to control VOC emissions permits pleasure craft builders and painters more flexibility
by allowing them to operate
an averaging” approach. This strategy works well since

it allows facilities

to use
a combination

of high and low VOC products providing,

at the end of the year, the average value

is below

a certain target level. This allows emission targets

to be met without forcing facilities and paint manufacturers

to compromise

on critical product performance.
For example. yards can attain an overall VOC reduction

by using low VOC primer and filler systems with compatible high VOC extreme gloss topcoats

to deliver

a solution that is competitive, durable and best meets the customer’s expectations. In Asia there
is little VOC legislation

to restrict the pleasure craft coatings market from continuing

to grow (at the potential expense
of losses
in market areas with more restrictive requirements). Industry Proposal We acknowledge
that VOC emission reductions
are required from pleasure craft coating operations,
but we urge the EPA to take an approach which will minimize adverse impact on the pleasure crat industry

in the US. In doing so, the EPA should consider the following proposals, which involve modification

to the current pleasure craft coating guidance

in the final Miscellanecus Metal and Plastic Parts CTG. Consideration

of an Averaging Approach Experience

in Europe indicates that an effective means
of regulating VOC emissions from pleasure craft sLrface coating operations

is to offer facilities the option
to average emissions over

a specified time period (in the case of the European rules, the time period

Is a year). This provides flecibility

to coatings manufacturers
and end-use customers,

to allow VOC emission reductions while minimizirigadverse impacts
on each facility. This approach requires affected facilities

to maintain
an inventory

of all products used
in their surface coating operations, including any additional solvents required for surface preparation, thinning

of coatirgs for proper application, and cleanup. These record-keeping requirements are similar

to those already used
in existing EPA and State VOC regulations

for other surface coatings operations. The average VOC emission figure over the specified time period would be maintained

at or below the level defined by the EPA,
in consultation with the pleasure craft industry.

A properly-vetted averaging approach could replace the current CTG category-and-limit approach,

or it could be offered
as an alternative compliance option
to a category-arid-limit approach. Brunswick 2009 Qi results http:/lwww,brunswick.com/newsfnewsstorieslrelease!1
/1282727.oho 6 9d

1JDdW wo: oio to wWith regard
to the current category-and-limit approach taken from Rule 1106.1, we strongly encourage
the EPA to consider and implement
the following modifications

to the current Final CTG pleasure craft coating guidance: 1. Extended time for compliance Adequate opportunity was not provided for industry

to explain why South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 was inappropriate

for inclusion

in the Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG. Now,

it is vital to the continued success

of the multi-billion dollar US pleasure craft industry that more time is provided for paint manufacturers

to develop and introduce lower-VOC coatings, and for customers

to adjust their operations

to the use of these new coatings. In order to comply with the VOC limits
in Rule 1105.1, new technologies
and formulations
will need to be developed and implemented before realistic reductions

In VOC content will occur. In turn, these technologies
and formulations need to be validated.

It takes significant time to develop and teSt new products

1 satisfy this technically demanding market, and which will ensure minimum disruption

to the pleasure craft building and coating Industry. Ruslvng inferior products.

to market has the potential

to be disastrous

as customers

in this sector tend to be conservative, choosing products with
a known track record and that best protect the value of their investment.

If customers cannot apply

a preferred product, they are likely
to seek this product elsewhere
i.e. the business will be lost to an alternative district, state or even country. In addition,

it is vital that pleasure craft coating users have sufficient time to implement
the necessary procedural changes required

to work with low VOC pro ducts Users will also want to have flexibility

in choice of coating products and schemes which means that they will need time to adequately assess them making sure productivity
and quality are not negatively impacted, Ieadirg

to reduced competitiveness. It is also necessary

to allow coating manufacturers sufficient time to register any new low VOC antifouling coatings under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and corresponding State programs that regulate blocidal products prior to sale,

a process which can take upwards

of one year. For these reasons, industry requires
an interim period
of at least four years (until August 2013)
to allow sufficient time for coating manufacturers

and users to adequately prepare. For the duration

of this interim period industry requires that the provisions

of Rule 1106.1

in the CTG are modified according

to section

2. In addition, the provisions

of Rule 1106.1

in the CTG should also be modified according

to section

3 to provide categories and VOC levels that represent RACT through the interim period and beyond. 2. Modification

of Rule 1106.1 categorIes and VOC limIts
(4 years interim period) To allow coating manufacturers

to continue trading

in ozone non-compliance areas the following minor modification

is recommended

to Rule 1106.1 fora four years Interim period only. Revised VOC limits for the Finish Primer/Surfacer” Category Boat owners have very high expectations

for the final look of their boats. The finish

Is expected

to be iper 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, ossy finish.

In order
to 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. litroducing 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 solidsllow VOC primers often require additional sanding, creating more dust, to achieve the same smooth surface that is obtained with 7 6frS829t’O

UDdI’.J WUO8 oio tO Rewcurrentlyavailableproducts.Thiswouldnecessitateachangeinworkingpracticesinyardstoovercometheincreasedhealthhazardassociatedwiththeincreaseddustlevels.Inordertoensureproductscancontinuetobesuppliedintoozonenon-complianceareasduringthenextfauryearsthatcontinuetomeettheaestheticandperformancerequirementsdemandedbyboetowners,theindustrystronglysuggesttheVOClevelsoftheRule1106.1‘FinishPrimer/Surfacer”coatingcategoryshould berevisedfrom420giLtoGOt)gIL.3.PermanentchangesrequiredtoRule1106.1Inadditiontothetemporarychangessuggestedinsection2forthefouryearinterimperiod,industryalso requiresEPAtoimplementthefollowingpermanentchangestothecategoriesandlevelstakenfromRule1106.1foruseinIlieCTGwithimmediateeffect.AdditionalSpecialityCategoiyandVOCLimit:AntifoulingSealer/TieCoatRule1106.1isdatedandtherearemorerecentrequirementsforan additionalcategorytoreflectpleasurecraftcoatingsofthemoderndaywhicharemoreenvironmentallyfriendlyaridlorcompliantwithInternationallaw.AnewcategoryisrequIredasaresultoftheIMOAntifoulingSystemsconvention(IMOAFS)andshouldbeacdedtothecategoriestakenfromRule1106.1.ThecategoryshouldbenamedAntifouluigsealerrrleCoat’withamaximumVOCcontentof420giL.AntifóulingSealerCoatsandTieCoatshavebeenintroducedintothemarketlargelytofacilitatecompliancewithAnnex1oftheIMO-AntifoulingSystemsConvention(2001)6Thiscoatingtypeisrequiredtopromoteadhesionofhiocide-free,non-stickfoulreleasecoatingswhenappliedtovessels.Theuseofblocide-freecoatingsbringssignificantenvironmentalbenefits.AntifoulingSeale-)TieCoatsmustcontainaVOCupto420gILinordertofacilitateadequatepenetrationInto.nunderlyingpaintfilmformaximumadhesion.Theyalsocontainahighdegreeofpolymericmaterial(henceneed ahigherVOCcontenttomaintainanacceptableapplicationviscosity)sothecoatingcanformaflexibleyetcompletebarrier overanunderlyingpainturn.Anappropriatedefinitionforthistypeofcoatingwouldbe...“acoatingappliedoverBiocidalantifoullngcoatingforthepurposeofproventingreleaseofbiocidesintotheenvironmentand/ortopromoteadhesionbetweenanantifoullngandaprimerorotherantifoulings.”RevisedVOCLimitforAntifoulingCategorySignificanttimea’defforthavebeeninvestedbyindustrytodeveloplowVOCantifoulingcoatings suitableforuseonpleasurecraft.ItispossibletoreducetheVOCcontentofantifoulingcoatingstoa certainlevel,afterwhichproductperformancebecomessignificantlyVcompromisedi.e.thecoatingbeginstofoulafteramuchshortertimeasthe performanceVlifetimeoftheprcductisreduced.Ifthishappenstheantifoulingmustbereappliedmorefrequently resultinginagreateroverallVOCcontribution. Thisnullifiesthemerit ofproducingthelowerVOCantifoulinginthefirstinstance,ThecurrentFederalHAPlevelforAntifoulingsintheUSis400g/L7asistheCTG8whichcoversthesamesector.SouthCoastAQMDRule1106whichappliestoMarinecoatingVoperationsalsocontainsaVOClimitforantifoulingcoatingsof400g/L.ThislimitismoreVsuitabletorepresentRACTforthiscoatingcategoryandwesuggestthefollowingVOClimitamendment;aForcomplianceviththeIMO.AFSConvention,boatspreviouslycoatedwithanon-compliantantifoulingareabletocomplyiftheyovercoatwithasealercoatpriortoapplicationofacompliantcoating.NationalEmissionStandardforHazardousAirPollutantsfromShipbuildingandShipRepair(SurfaceCoating)OperatioreeControlTechniquesGuidelinesforShipbuildingandShipRepairOperations(SurfaceCoating)8VS.d88SOlJDdWwHI:oOTOtOWCategoryof‘OtherSubstrateAntifoularitCoating”—amendfrom330g/Lto400g!LRevisedVOCL’mitforExtremeHighGlossCoatingsTheExtremeHIhGlossCoatingscategoryrepresentsacomparativelysmallbutcritical,highvaluesegmentoftheoverallpleasurecraftmarket.HighsolidstopcoatshavenotbeenwellreceivedintheNorthAmericanpleasurecraftcoatingmarket.Ingeneral,usershavefoundthefinishthattheseproductsprovidetobeinferiortotraditional,higherVOCcontainingproducts.6Jthoughhighsolidsandwater-basedtechnologiesareavailableandinuseinotherindustries(e.g.carrefinishingandaviation)thecontrolledapplicationconditionswhichmaketheuse.ofthesecoatingspossibleinthoseindustriesareneitheravailablenorpossibleforthepleasurecraftcoatingindustry.Additionally,sorielowVOCtopcoats,originatingfromthecarrefinishmarketandnowbeingmarketedforpleasurecraftusage,arebasedonapolymertypewhichprovidesreduceddurability.ThesecoatingshaveareducedlifetimeandtheirusewillnecessitateamorefrequentrecoatirigschedulewhichmeansInrelativeterms,moreVOCIsemitted.Theaestheticpropertiesthattopcoatsgivetothetopsidesofpleasurecraftareofprimaryimportancetoboatowners.Thisshouldnotbeunderestimatedordismissed.Ifboatownerscannotachievethedesiredsuper-glossy,mirror-likefinish,theywillnotsettleforaninferiorsolution—theywillsimplyhavetheirboatspaintedelsewhere.Thesecoatingsareprofessionallyappliedsoanyrestrictionontheirusethatreducesthecompetitivenessofihdividuaiyardswillhaveadirectandimmediatebearingonemploymentlevelsandstaterevenues.Inatypicalextremeglosscoatingsscheme,thetopcoatrepresentslessthan40%oftheoverallVOCburienandlessthan10%oftotalyachtcoatingsonanannualisedbasis.Rule1106.1wasdevelopedtotackleseriousozonenon-attainmentinSouthCoastAQMDinCalifornia.Itisoverlysevereandrestrictiveforadoptionforthemajorityofnon-attainmentareaswheretheproblemis‘Moderate’accordingtotheEPA.TheIndustryfeelsthatrestrictingtheVOCoftheothercoatingcategoriesand settingtheVOClimitforExtremeHighGlosstopcoatsto600gIL,providesindividualstateswithabalancedVOCreductionstrategythatisappropriatetothechallengeandthatdoesnotseriouslyimpactthecompetitivenessoftheindustryinthestate.RevisedCoatingCategoryDefinitionforExtremeHighGlossTopcoatAsmentionedabove,applicationoftopcoatsisundertakeninavarietyofenvironmentalconditionswhichcanhaveanaffectonthefinalglosslevel oftheproductatthepointofapplication.TomanagethisvariationitissuggestedthattheglosslevelstatedinthedefinitionoftheExtremeHighGloss Topcoatscategorybeloweredslightlytoread...“Extremehighg.osscoatingmeansanycoatingwhichachievesgreaterthan90percentreflectanceona600meterwhentestedbyASTMMethodD523-89”4.EPA’sdevelopmentofPleasureCraftMACTStandardTheindustryisalsoawarethatseparateEPAstaffarecurrentlydeterminingaMaximumAchievableControlTechnology(MACT)Standardto controlHazardousAirPollutant(HAP)emissionsfrompleasurecraftcoatingoperationsintheUS.PleasurecraftcoatingmanufacturershavesubmittedasubstantialamountofinformationtohelptheEPAdeveloparulewhichmeetstherequirementsofallpartiesconcerned.TheindustryiskeentoensurethattherecommandationstheEPAmakeforpleasurecraftcoatingoperationsintheMiscellaneousIVetalandPlasticPartsC1’GareconsistentwithwhatisplannedforthePleasureCraftIVACTstandard(proposaldueoutearlynextyear).SummaryThepleasurecraftindustrywasnotgiventhenormalopportunitytoconsultwiththeEPAsufficientlyduringthedraftingoftheCTG.Itthereforefeelsthatitisimperativethatevenatthisstagethechangestothe provisionsofRule1106.1intheCTGputforwardinthisdocumentarefu[yconsideredinordertosafeguardanindustrythatiscriticaltotheUS96’d689t’OHDdWWHTS:8OEDtoREWeconomyandalreadyundersignificantpressure.TherecanbenooubtthattheimplementationoftheprovisionsofSouthCoastAQMDRule1106.1(initspresentform)IntheCTGtoregulatetheVOCcontentofpleasurecraftcoatings,intotheSIP’sofozonenon-attainmentstatesisoverlysevereandwillhaveseriousnegativeeffectsonthepleasurecraftcoatingindustryintheseareas.NPCArespectfullyasktheEPAtorevisetheCTGinthefollowingway,tomakeitmorerelevantfortheUSpleasurecraftcoatingindustry;1.RegulateVOCemissionsfromfacilitiesusingpleasurecraftcoatingsbyincludinganaveragingapproachasacomplianceoptionIfthisisriotdeemedpossiblethenpoints2and3shouldapply.2.AmendtheCTG“FinishPrimer/Surfacer’VOClimitfrom420toGOOgiLfora4yearinterimperiodtoallowcoatingmanufacturersanduserssufficienttimetodevelopandimplementcompliantcoatings.3.MakechangesthatarerequiredtotheRule1106.1provisionsoftheCTGwithimmediafeandpermanenteffectasfollows,Addanadditionalspecialitycategoryof“AntifoulingSealer/TieCoat”withVOClimitof420giLtoaligntheCTGwiththelMOAS;•Amend“OtherSubstrateAntifoulantCoating”VOClimitfrom330gILto400glL;aAmendthe“ExtremeHighGloss”VOClimitfrom420g/Lto600gIL,reflectingtheveryspecialisednatureofthecoatingsinthiscategory;•Revisethecoatingcategorydefinitionof“ExtremeHighGlossTopcoat”toread:“Extremehighglosscoatingmeansanycoatingwhichachieves‘reaterthan90percentreflectanceona6OmeterwhentestedbyASTMMethodD523-89”Inaddition,thepleasurecraftindustryhasalreadyworkedwithEPAstafftoprovideinformationtosupportthedevelopmentofaPleasureCraftMACTStandard.Thuswerequest:4.Provisionsofthe pleasurecraftcategoriesandVOClimitsoftheCTGmustbeconsistentwiththe developmentofrequirementsintheplannedPleasureCraftMACTStandard.NPCA,withthehaipofthepleasurecraftcoatingsindustry,wouldliketoworkwiththeEPAonthisissuearidwewouldwelcomeanopportunitytodiscussthisproposalinmoredetailduringafacetofacemeetingattheEPAoffices.RespectfullysubmittedinconnectionwithIllinoisProposaltoadoptthePleasureCraftCTG,ByJamesSellSenior Counsel-AmericanCoatingsAssociationjselkoaint.oro202-462-6272ext25210OLd689OHDdWwus:8OTOtOFeu

# C 13

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL IlOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVA ILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATfLE ORGAN IC MA TERIA L ElI,aSSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMi'vIERCIAL PRODUCTS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 lLL. A 0,"1. CODE 21 1, 213 AND 219

NOTICE
To: JoIUlll1€n"imtlt, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollntioo Conn'O) Board Jnmes R. Thompson Center 100 West Ralldolph, Suile 11-500 Chicago, IliulOis 60601-3218 SEE A TrACHED SERVICE LIST ) ) ) ) ) ) R2010-20 (Rnlemaking-Air)

Please lake notice Ihn! I have today med electrollicnlly wilh Ihe Of lice of the Pollulion Conn'ol Board the TESTJiIoIONY OF OLIN CORPORATiON, n copy of wJJich is herewilll served electronically upon you. If you would like a hard copy ofslIch leslimony, plcflsc canfnet the undersigued i111d n hard copy will be sent to you.

Respectfnlly Snbmitted, OLIN CORPORATION

Dnled: May 7, 20 I O. 600 Powder Mill Road East Alton, IL 62024 (6) 3) 253-3730

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7,2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MA TfER OF:
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MA TERlAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218 AND 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) . R2010-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

TESTIMONY OF OLIN CORPORATION [Olin Corporation expects that this testimony will be presented by Michael L. Roark or Philip L. Sutton, both of Olin Corporation, but reserves the right to designate another individual to give such testimony. The presenter will swear to the accuracy of the testimony.]
East Alton, TIlinois is the headquarters of Olin Corporation's ("Olin's") Winchester Division which maintains manufacturing operations at East Alton, illinois and Oxford, Mississippi. The Winchestcr Division employs approximately 2100 people, with approximately 1800 employees at East Alton, llIinois. Winchester manufactures small arms ammunition and
ammunition components for military, law enforcement and commercial customers worldwide. Winchester's East Alton operations include:

• Manufacture of Centerfire Ammunition (up to 50 Caliber)

• Manufacture of Shotshell Ammunition

• Manufacture of Ammunition Components (Primers, Shell cases, Shot, BUllets. etc.)

• Manufacture of Ejection Cartridges Olin's East Alton Winchester Division operates under Clean Air Act Permit No. 96030015 (Title
V Permit). 

### In the manufacture of small arms ammunition and ammunition components, OliJi

uses sealants containing volatile organic materials ("VOM") in order to assure that the

I

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

ammunition will perform safely and effectively under extreme weather conditions and other
extreme atmospheric and environmental conditions. At present, Olin's YOM emissions are subject to limits under the Title V permit. Certain applications which IEPA contends are coating applications are subject to Title V permit requirements derived from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219, Subpart F. Other applications that are either not coating or not otherwise subject to more specific standards are subject to Title V permit requirements derived from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219, Subpart TT. Olin's YOM emissions are in compliance with these limits. The rulemaking docket does not contain sufficient information for Olin to determine whether the unique characteristics of ammunition manufacturing were considered when evaluating operations for this rulemaking, but the available information indicates that ammunition manufacture was not considered. Olin has had very little time to consider the full implications of these proposed changes, but Olin is certain that the stated cost estimates and

- allotted time for compliance are completely inaccurate and both infeasible and conunercially impractical for its operations.

_ Olin is very concerned that the proposed limits, if applicable to its
East Alton operations, will be technically and/or economically infeasible. 

### Impact of Changes To Olin
There are three changes proposed in R20l0-20 that could have a significant impact on Olin's East Alton ammunition manufacturing operations: I) the new military specification coating category; 2) the new all other coating category; and 3) the short time frame to meet new emission limitations. 1. The Addition of the Military Specification Coating Classification The new "Military Specification Coating" classification in 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 219.204(q)(1)(L) may apply to a number of Winchester processes, depending upon how this

2

### Electronic Filing - Received, 

### Clerk's Office, May 

### 7, 2010

term is interpreted. The term "Military Specification Coating" in proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 

### 211.3785 is defmed as "a coating which has a formulation approved by a United States Military Agency for use on military equipment." Winchester has several sealant application
processes that JEPA contends (and Olin disputes) are coating which use sealant formulations which must conform to military specifications. If 

### the term "military equipment" is interpreted to include ammunition, then many of the sealants used by Olin may fall under this new definition and, thus, be subject to the limits in this category. For many of these sealants, the military specifications ("MILSPECs") for the sealants are in excess of the proposed pound YOM per gallon limits. It is not technically feasible for Olin to meet the proposed Military Specification Coating limits and also comply with the military specification for many of the sealants used in ammunition manufacture.
We are uncertain what materials are subject to the Military Specification Coating category or whether ammunition manufacture is intended to be includcd in this category, or any of the other categories in 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code § 

### 219.2l9(q)(I). We were unable to find any discussion of the military specification limit in the background documents listed by the Agency

as supporting the Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, 

### EPA-453/R-08-003. We note that in one of the background documents, the final NESHAPs rule for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, 69 Fed. Reg. 

### 130 (Jan. 2, 2004), military munitions were excluded:
We have revised the scope of the high performance subcategory to remove "military combat, tactical, and munitions coating" from the defmition of high performance coating. As indicated in this preamble, the surface coating of metal parts and products performed on-site at installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States, or the surface coating of military munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States, will be addressed in the NESHAP for defense land systems and miscellaneous equipment that is currently under development.

3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7,2010

69 Fed. Reg. at 140. The Defense Land Systems and Misccllaneous Equipment rulemaking is in
progress but has not been completed. 

### In coming to this conclusion, the U.S. Environmental

. Protection Agency ("USEPA") cited comments that explained: The commenter claimed that the proposed compliance options would be impractical and extremely costly for DoD facilities because of the complexity of military coating operations, the number of coatings and s61vents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated·: Many' DoD installations (especially those that service or remanufacture artillery, imnored vehicles, weapons systems, and support equipment) use thousands of different coatings, and each material is subject to its own military specification.
Because DoD facilities use HAP containing solvents, the commenter claimed they could not use the proposed compliant materials option. Reformulating solvents or coatings requires extensive field testing before they may be approved for use in tactical field equipment and weapons systems. 

### In addition, updating the coatings for which there is a military specification requires updating the documentation applicable to military specifications and the documentation for the relevant cquipment and weapons systems that adopt those military specifications.
The proposed emission rate option and the add-on controls option are not feasible because they would require DoD to be able to accuratcly track the amount of coating or cleaning solvent used on each item or substrate. 

### 69 Fed. Reg. at 143. The above commenter describes the unique nature of manufacturing to military specifications and as a response to such comments, US EPA determined a separate rulemaking for such materials was warranted. We ask the Agency to clarify what analysis was done on the feasibility of the proposed limitations in this rulemaking for materials subject to military specifications, especially small arms ammunition. Operations at Winchester that may be subject to the new Military Specification Coating limit are currently limited under either 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code § 219.204G)(1) & (2) or 35 

### Ill. Adm Code Part 219, Subpart TT and such limits are included in Olin's Title V Permit. If applicable, the new air dried limit of2.8Ib/gal under proposed 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 

### § 219.204(q)(I)(L) would replace the currently applicable air dried limits of 3.5 or 4.3 Ibs VOM/gal provided for in 35 

### Ill.

4

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, 

### May 7, 2010

Adm. Code 

### § 219.204(j)(1) & (2). If considered applicable, IEPA may contend that the new air
dried limit of 2.81b/gal under proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 219.204(q)(l)(L) could also apply to Primer Sealant and Ejection Cartridge 0rerations. These operations are currently regulated under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219, Subpart TT and are subject to an overall plant-wide emission limit of 99 tons/year. If the new 2.8Ib/gallimit proposed under 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 2l9.204(q)(1)(L) applies to Olin ammunition sealants with a formulation approved by United States Military Agency, then a reduction to this level would cause a significant reformulation of numerous sealant processes and
all of these reformulations, if a reformulation is even feasible, would have to go through the extensive military specification exception process. To meet the currently applicable limits, Olin needed to get specific exemptions from military specifications and, at present, Olin expects that a further sealant reformulation that would allow the final product to meet exacting military performance standards may not be technically or economically feasible.
2. The Addition of35 Ill. Adm. Code 2l9:204(glCBB)(il All Other Coatings The addition of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### § 2l9.204(q)(1)(BB)(i) All Other Coatings

- Air Dried
may cause some non-military sealant operations at Winchester that are currently subject to 35 

### Ill.
Adm. Code Part 219, Subpart TT to be subject to the limits under Subpart F for the first time. These sealants may then be subject the air dried limit of 3.3lb VOM/gal. Those sealant operations currently placed in the Subpart TT category do not have a lb/gallimit, but are subject
to an overall plant-wide emission limit of 99 tons/year. Based upon statements made by the Agency in the past, Olin is concerned that IEP A will assert that some military and commercial operations, in particular its primer sealant and ejection caru'idge operations, will be subject to this All Other Coatings limit. Primer sealant and ejection cartridge operations are unique to

5

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

ammunition manufacture and alternate sealants are not currently available. Historically, Olin has disagreed with IEPA's determination that primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants are coatings, but if the Agency continues to assert that these operations are coating, then application of this new limit proposed under 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 

### 219.204(q)(l)(BB)(i) for these two operations may not be technically or economically feasible. 3. Timing of New Changes Beginning May I, 2011 the proposed R2010-20 would e!imlnate 35 fll. Adm. Code § 

### 219.204(j) and institute the new limits under 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 

### 219.204(q). It took more than three years for Olin to reformulate, test and obtain military approval of its sealants to meet the current 35lll. Adm. Code § 

### 219.204(j) limits. A similar, if not greater effort, would be

. required if sealant operations currently designated by the Agency as subject to 35 Ill. Adm. Code



### Part 219, Subpart F would be subject to the new Military Specification Coating category and those previously unclassifiable sealant operations subject to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### Part 219, Subpart
IT were subject to the All Other Coatings category. Due to the limited time allowed for
comment on the proposed regulation, Olin has just begun to realize the potential impact of having to reformulate its sealants. Olin has already reduced the YOM content of the sealants specified by the military to the lowest feasible level. Based upon available information, Olin knows of no feasible option to further reduce the YOM content and produce an acceptable product for the military or commercial applications. It is completely infeasible for Olin to arrive at a reformulation, test the refofIDulationto determine if the reformulated sealant still meets perrormance criteria and, where necessary, advocate a variance from military specifications in a one year time frame. 

### In addition, if reformulation is finall y determined to be infeasible, designing, permitting, constructing and

6

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 

### 7, 2010

implementing controls would add significantly more time. At the time that Olin last
reformulated its sealants to meet the current limits, Olin estimated that it would take at least 34 months to install appropriate cnntrol equipment. As we indicated earlier, Olin ammunition operations are nonstandard and off-the-shelf technologies and products readily available for other operations have not been developed for and cannot be adapted to ammunition manufacture.
A one year time frame for implementing the new limits is infeasible. Details of Sealant Operations and Reformulation Issues Figure 1 below shows a cross section of an assembled cartridge and indicates where the primer sealants. cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants are applied. 

# Figure 1. Assembled Cartridge.

Primer

Cap Sealant Primer Sealant 

### Shell Case 

# / Mouth Waterproof Sealant

Bullet

• Primer Sealant is applied to assembled primers to maintain the primer assembly and prevent the explosive priming mix from dusting during the transfer of primers in the Primer Manufacturing area and during subsequent ammunition assembly operations. The sealant allows primers to be handled safely-and stored in extreme weather conditions and other extreme atmospheric and enviromnental conditions, thereby assuring proper performance when assembled into a finished round. Olin reported 24.1 tons of YOM emissions from its Primer Sealant Operations in 2009.

• Cap Sealant is applied to seal the annular crevice between the primer and shellcase after



### 7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7,2010

the primer has been inserted into the empty shellcase in order to assure that the
ammunition will perform safely and effectively under extreme weather conditions and other extreme atmospheric and environmental conditions. Olin reported 0.2 tons of
YOM emissions from its Cap Sealant operations in 2009.

• Mouth waterproofing sealant is used to provide a waterproof barrier between the
shellcase mouth and the bullet in order to assure that the ammunition will perform safely
and effectively under extreme weather conditions and other extreme atmospheric and
environmental conditions. Olin reported 1.5 tons of YOM emissions from its mouth waterproofing operations in 2009.



### • An Ejection Cartridge sealant is used to provide a waterproof barrier in the assembly of

an Ejection Cartridge that is used in military applications in order to assure that the ejection cartridge will perform safely and effectively under extreme weather conditions
and other extreme atmospheric and environmental conditions. Olin reported 

### O. I tons of
YOM emissions from its Ejection Cartridge in 2009. Attachment I presents 

## an example of a MILSPEC for a primer sealant. As shown in the example, Section 3.2.1 of the MILSPEC calls for YOM content of the sealants to be a minimum of 98% by weight of the total solvent content of the lacquer. Table I in Section 3.2 shiJws the
maximum allowable solids content to be 1.3%. Per the MILSPEC, the primer sealant is well in

excess of the proposed 2.8 Ib YOM/gal. The foil owing is a preliminary review of potential issues associated with sealant
reformulations that point out that further reformulation is infeasible:

• Potential Primer Sealant Reformulation Issues: Primer Sealants are made using a base compound with nitrocellulose in an alcohol base.

8

### Electronic 

### Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

The alcohol base is a critical component of the sealant as it is responsible for controlling
the evaporation or drying rate and residual moisture. Using a substitute solvent with too quick a drying solvent could result in moisture problems and a substitute solvent drying
too slowly could result in incomplete bonds with the primer.

• Potential Cap Sealant Reformulation Issues: Reformulation of the Cap Sealants to meet cun'ent restrictions relied heavily upon the use of acetone (a non- YOM). Further substitution of acetone would require additional tcsting and approvals because of the affect that acetone has on drying time and moisture content.

.• Potential Mouth Waterproofing Reformulation Issues: Reformulation of the mouth waterproofing sealants to meet. current limits relied heavily
upon the use of Methylene Chloride (a non-V OM) which had the con'eetproperties for this application. Additional substitution of Methylene Chloride as a solvent 

### in the mouth waterproofing sealant will increase the East Alton facility Methylene Chloride hazardous
air pollutant ("HAP") emissions, which Olin wants to avoid. A reformulation of mouth waterproofing sealants may also result in an economically infcasible re-design of the entire application and drying process due to increased solids or significant changes in the

. drying times.

• Potential Delays in Obtaining Approval for Sealant Formulation Changes: Based on Olin's experience with reformulating the sealants to meet current limits, Olin would '>York closely with the government and other commercial customers to obtain approval for reformulated sealants, but expects that the timing of the approval process will exceed one year. 

### In addition, approval of any reformulation may not be acceptable

to the government or other commercial customer.



### 9

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

If Olin were not able to develop suitable reformulations, then captuie and control systems would be required. Olin currently has over 50 separate machines that apply cap sealant and/or mouth waterproofing compounds. These machines are at several locations throughout the facility. The primer sealants are also applied on small scale operations over a large area. Emission controls may have to consider not only the application area, but also the drying area. Design of the capture and control system would also need to consider the explosive operations in the'se areas and account for potential concentration of explosives. Due to the limited time for review of the proposed regulations, it is not possible to develop a preliminary design or cost estimates for a capture and control system, but Olin is certain that such a system would cost far in excess of the $1758 per ton ofVOM removed estimate that was presented in the 4/1512010
!EPA testimony. For a potential mouth waterproofing capture and control system, Olin has estimated the YOM removal cost to bc in excess of $100,000 per ton. Conclusions Olin has had very limited time to review the potential impact that R2010-20 would have on its ammunition manufacturing operations. Based on its limited review, several issues have been identified:

• Olin is uncertain how the Agency will classify operations that make ammunition using sealants that need to meet military specifications.

• Olin is uncertain how the Agency will classify sealant operations that arc now considered unclassifiable coating operations. If Olin's primer and ejection cartridge sealant operations are included in either the proposed Military Specification Coating or Other, Coatings classification, continuing these manufacturing operations may not be technically

or economically feasible.

10

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

• Any necessary adjustments to the current MJLSPECS for sealants would be a lengthy
process extending beyond the one year available to achieve compliance with the proposed
limits.

• Any reduction in allowable sealant YOM content will require extensive development, testing, and approval by the military or other commercial customers before alternate sealants can be substituted.

• Based on Olin's experience with reformulating its sealants to meet current limits, the reformulation process, if feasible at all, would likely take 3 or 

### 4 years, with additional time needed to install controls, if reformulation is infeasible.

• Reformulating the primer sealants is not the same as the reformulation process Olin used
to meet current limits for its cap sealants and mouth waterproofing compounds. The drying rate is critical to the manufacture of primers and any other solvent used in its primer sealants would likely require extensive testing and manufacturing adjustments which may well be infeasible for the East Alton operations. Suggested Resolution Olin suggests the following actions to resolve the potential issues identified above:

• That the military specification coating definition in proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 211.3785 be amended to exclude ammunition sealants. 

### If this occurs many of Olin's ammunition sealants would continue to be classified as "Extreme Performance Coatings" regulated under proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code §219.204(q)(1)(G) and others would be regulated under other subsections or subparts of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219.

• That the primer sealants used in ammunition manufacturing and the ejection cartridge sealants used in the manufacture of ejection cartridges not be subject to the proposed



### 11

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7,2010

coaling regulations and that they continue to·be regulated under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219, Subpart IT.

12

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010



### ., NOTICE OF VALIDATION ATTACHMENT 1 OLIN CORPORATION EXAMPLE OF PRIMER SEALANT MILSPEC



### SPECIFICATION 

# I INCH-POUND 

# I MIL-V46075A(AR) NOTICE 1 

### 24 June 

### 1999

LACQUER, RED (FOR AMMUNITION PRIMERS)

MIL-L-46075A(AR), dated 29 September 197], has been reviewed and determined to be valid 

### for use in 

### acquisition: Custodian;

Army-AR Preparing activily; Army-AR

AMSCN/A 

### FSC 8010 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved fot pllblic telensc; distribution is unlimited.

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7,2010

MIL- L-46075A(HIl) 29**Seete~ber** 1971 SUP£RS£DIIIG KIL- L-46075 (HIl) 10 December 1963

MILITARY SPECIFICATION UlCQUER, RED (FOR AMMUNITION PRIMERS)

1. SCOPE 1,1 ThiD 9pecification covers one grade of red lacquer for application ovei**th~** foil and anvil of ammunition**pri~er** after anvil seatins operotion. It csn be used in areas eovered by AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS.

2. APPLlCiUlLl: DOCUMENTS 2.1 tatton to the The following documents of the issue in for bids or request for propossl**fo~** a**e~tent** specified herein. affect on the date (Jf lov!- pert of thie epecification

SPECIFICATIONS

FEDERAL

TT-P-143 - Paint, Varnish, Lacquer and Related Katerlalsi Packaging, packing end Harking of. STANDARDS

FEDERAL Fed. Teet Method Std. No. 141 - Paint, Varnish, Lacquer and Related Materials; Methods of Inspection, Sompling Qnd Te.ting. (Copies of specifications and**st8nda~d9** required by contractore in**connec~ tio~** **~itn 9p~clfic**  procurement**flln~tlona** should be obtAined from the**pro~** curing agency or as direeted by the contracting officer.)



# I FSC 8010 

# I

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 

### 7, 2010

iii L-L-46075A(MR)

3. REQUIREMENTS 3. I Composition. The lacquer shal I be nitrocellulose combined with. red BZO 

### dye1 7**and'neee~sary** amounts of solvents to yield a product conformIng to the requl rements Qf thIs speclftcatlon.

).2 Quantitative regulrfoments.**Th~** lacqtJer shall conform to the requirements of Table I when teste.d as In**~.** '. Regul rements TABLE I • Quantlthtlve requirements Minimum MaxImum Total solids, percent by weight of lacquer Nitrocellulose, percent by weight of total**soll~s** Ethyl**8cetate~** percent by weight of lacquer. on 6nalysls Butyl acetate, percent by Weight of**'~cQuerl** on analysis Ethyl alcohol, percent by weight of lacquer, on analysis Viscosity. Saybo1t Universal at 70°F" seconds Orylng time

Dry thrQugh, minutes 0.7 I.) 

### 90 94 58 78 20 30 10 40 60

2
3.2, I Solvent. On analysis ethyl acetate. butyl acetate and ethyl alcohol shall be a minimum of 98 percent by weight of the total solvent content of the lacquer,

3.3 QualitatIve requirements. 3.3.1 CondItion In container. When tested as In 4.4.5 the lacquer shall be clear and free from**sedl~ent** end suspended matter when examined by transmitted light. It shall show no llverlng, curdling, .90111ng or skinning In a freshly opened full container. When flowed out on a clear glass plate tho color shall be 8 transparent rod chara,teristic of the dye**~sed.**

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS li.1 Responsibility for inspection. Unless otherwise specified In the contract or purchase order. the supplier Is responsible for the performance of all Inspection requirements es specifIed herein. Except as otherwise specifled In. the contract or order the supplier may utilize his own or any other facl Iitles suitable for the performance of the Inspection requirements spec1fled herein. \In less disapproved by the GovernlJ)t!nL The Government reserves the rIght to perform any of. the inspections set forth in the. spec!" flcation where such inspections are deemed necessary to assure that supplies and services conform to the prescribed requirements .
.1/Calco 011 red N-1700 manufactured by American Cyanamid COlilpany is a dye of this type.

2

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

## ..**_.~** ....... -'- --.**---~--** .--

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, 

### May 7,2010**HIL-L-~6075A(HR)** 

### 4.2 Sampling, Inspection and testing. Unless otherwise specified sampling. inspection and testing shall be In accordance with method 10)1 of Federal Standard 141.

4.3 Testing. Testing under this specification shal I be for acceptance of individual lots. The right Is reserved to make any additional tests deemed necessary to determine that the lacquer meets the requl rements of the specification.



### 4.4 Test methods.**4.~.** 1 Test conditions. The routlno and referee testing conditions shall be In accordance with section 7 of Federal Standard 141 except as otherwise specified herein,



### 4.4.2 The following tests shall be conducted In accordence with Federel Standerd**I~I** and as hereinafter specified. • TABLE I I - Index of tests

Item. Total solids HI trocellulose Ethy I aceta"te Butyl acet.te Ethyl alcohol Viscosity Drying time Condition In contolner Test methods.

N Paragraph of Applicable this speclflcamethod in t ion giving furFed Std**I~I** ther references 

### 404.3**~.4,4** 

### 7360 7360 

### 7360 4285 4061**~261** PDr.graph of this specification giving requ I rernents Table Teble Table Table Table Table Table 3.3. I
4.4.3 Total solids. lIelgh to the nearest milligram 0 small dlsposoble aluminum dlshl7 approximately 2 Inches In diameter. lIelgh Into the dish from a dropping bottle approximately 2 grams of the lacquer and add I mI. of toluene. Dry the pan for one hour In a gravity convection oven al 105'C. Upon coollng J reweigh to the nearest milligram and calculate the percent nonvolatile.
lIAlumlnum dishes suitable for this purpose are obtainable from Fisher Scientific Co., Calalog Humber**8-73~.**

3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7,2010

Mll-H6075A(HR)**~.4.~** Nitrocellulose. Pour about 10 mi. of the lacquer Into a 250 mi. frlenmeyer flask having a**2l1/~0** standard Joint and weIgh. Evaporate the solvents from the lacquer almost to dryness using a water bath at 60°C. and a gentle current of air, In sudl a manner that the sample will stili flow but has hIgh viscosity. R.,dlssol"e the sample In) m]. of acetone; If the dryIng nas been carried to-I far It may be necessary to use rol. of acetone. If It wll I not dissolve In 4 mI.**o~** ,:etone, discard and start wIth a new sample. Add 27 m), of ethyl alcohol 'nd Insert a magnetic stirring bar. While stIrring vigorously, add water rom a buret or pipet slowly at first until the resin precipitates, then continue until the flask Is filled. Allow the precJpttaeed "'troceJ1u}ose to settle, then fIlter through a lsrge, 50 mI.**~rltted** glass crucible of medium porosity, transferring and washing with water. Dry the. crucible jn 31'1 ·oven at. IOsoe. I cool and weigh, calculating directly as nitrocellulose. Confirm that the precipitate Is nitrocellulose by placing a small portion on a white porcelain plate and treating wfth B few drops of I percent dlpheny'amlne In concehtrated sulfuric acid. A deep blue color confIrms the presence of**nltrocel~u'ose. ~.4.5**  Condition In container. Determine package condition In accordance wIth method**~261** of federal Standard 141 and observe for campllnnce with 3.). I.

5. PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY 5. I Packaging and packing. The lacquer shall be delivered In I gallon containers. 5 gallon lug covered steel pal**~s** or in 55 gallon steel drums as spacifled (see 6.2). The lacquer shal I be packaged level A or C; packed level A. D, or C as specified (see 6.2) in accordance wIth**TT-P-l~3.**

5.2**HarkJn~.** The containers shall be marked In accordance with SpecifIcation fT-P-1 3.

6. NOTES ·6.1

. Intended use. as 8 sealer for small The lacquer covered by'. this specification Is Intended arms anmunl tlon pdmers·.: ,J' • 6.2 ordering data. Purchasers should exercise any desired options offered herein and procurement documents should specifY the following: 

### (a) (b) (c) (d) TI t Ie, number and date of this speel flcatlon. Whether Inspection will be made In accordance with section J031

of Federal Standard**1~1** (see**~.2).** Size of**~cnt8lner** requtred (see Section 5).

. level of packeging and packing required (see Section 5).

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

6.3 The lacquer should be purchased by volu"e, the unit being one U.S. liquid gallon of 231 cubic Inches at 15.6'c. (60'F.).**6.~** The lacquer is contemplated to be comparable to the following appro,I-. mate composition by weight. However, the Government assumes no responsibility for the acceptance of B product claimed tQ be manufactured under the IdentIcal formula.**I.~** Ibs. 25.0 lb •. 

### 74.0 lbs. 

# .0 g ra".

HI Iltary Custodian:

Amy

- HR Red Lacquer**30-~0** second 

### R.S. Nitrocellulose 

### (70% In denatured alcohol SD No. I) N"'butyl acetate Ethyl acetate Red azo dye

Preparing actl vi ty: Army

- HR (Project No. sOIO-ADII)

5

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

SPECIFICATION ANALYSIS SHEET IHSTAtJCIIOII') ,.", •• ,.. I lIn,1l lit """_1 Ill"'" Ci

...... _nl I'**.,.~I** ..**~'.'** ,,,·v,.,,, In ''''' "I II" 'r" ,. I" ., ' III

...

.. ,., •• I Ill D _ ' "D '". T'

.. , ''''','

.. , __ .011-= I

..**~1""''''** ,1' 'h , ,,,, II'Ir " -" "

.. m

...... '''''' ."Ila ,. h.'. 'lOll'''' " 11 ""'" .,"''''_

.... "". " ".1., l,.,f "" I ••• · , • .,_n •• 1M '''''' ,.,**~r** ,",. h III

.... • ,....".'.11 ,"W lift I,

... _ .... ,... lilt. "Illit tI'\**~t"""l** l.-l "I'd I. ""pillI"'I 11'

'

.. I:Cl'IC.

... TIQH

OI'U"4Illl:ZAlI0il '(1"'''1**,UrCoS1'~T(** 

### ,

-.o,
... t'" III0

.... N

.... N

..**ellOM"U.~'"**

..... ) AN" "."'1 Or TMI: S"'CClr,C"'"r'OH**C:"'I:AT~P** ,,"q.L,Cli&S ClIlI "'«QlIllllll:n IHTf!:n

.. nc'

... "lo" '"

.. noI:UflEilUN" un:' o .,,,'"

... .,"'glll

..... HU

... "

..... e "O'll"N'

)

.. 11 ""t**~"ECllrICATIOI'l** ".''''UC:11\'/I£' c'"

.. , ONO ,_ ""11:;1" IN

....... w
......

.. "E"**AII~** ,,,,,,,,.,. ,. "",,,_", 4 ,t

_ .... • , "" rl' '-, 1'ItI ,,,,. "flu""" ",,, " 1**."~,,** .".f" ,. , ...,

plpu**Il~'"** ,,. ...... _.r_ " ,. P • .-'

..... u
.... 'lr. '**=r~-~_.** 

# [) 0·-, ::..:,::-:.-,"'C 

## 4 -;-:2:":6::----.",.-c-.-,,",-.".-.-,.-,-.-,-.-,-.-.-

.. -,-)**:~ll:"** n,**Olno.~** [' t I ...-_ •.•. ------------,

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010



## '''0

OEP"""'''.NT 01' THe II_V knq MII,'ter1o.1B s.nd**Mec~ni08** ROllearcb Oent.er l.'atertD"lll1] MlutMCbuaett.u 02l. 72**Q'''IC1~L** IMIJtIll", "OI'U .•• 4'4D Pili ••**~AID** P.",,,,... .. ,,,, Oil" TN. 4_ ...

Director Arr1$' Haterials .e..ud MechaniClS Reuearoh Centar A:ruI. AMlllllHI.S WAtortow." MasolLObusetto 02172



## '''''0

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 

### 7,2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 21 I, 218 AND 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) R2010-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, certify that I have electronically served the attached Testimony of Olin Corporation on the date of May 7, 2010 upon the following persons: John The111ault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 INDIVIDUALS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST



## a0 

# f· Megan F chs, Attorney Illinois ar #6298380 Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 S1. Louis, MO 63105 (314) 480-1648 

# 5

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

SERVICE LIST FOR PCB NO. R 2010-20
Timothy 

### J. Fox Hearing Officer illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 foxt@ipcb.state.il.us Matthew 

### J. Dunn Chief, Division of Environmental Enforcement Office of the Attorney General 69 West Washington Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 mdunn@atg.state.il.us
Dana Vetterboffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 dana.vetterhoffer@illinois.gov Heidi 

### E. Hanson Podlewski & 

### Hanson, P.C. 4721 Franklin Avenue Suite 1500 Western Springs, IL 60558-1720 beh70@hotrnail.com Virginia Yang Dcputy Legal Counsel illinois Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702-1271 virginia. yang@illinois.gov Alec M. Davis General Counsel illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 

### E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62701 adavis@ierg,org

Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios Hodge Dwyer & 

### Driver 3150 Roland Avenue· Post Office Box· 5776 Springfield, IL 62705-5776 kbodge@hddaltorneys.com mrios@hddattorneys.com·

# C 14

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010
* * * * * PC 

### # 1 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLlNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AV AILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 21 

### J, 218, and 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) 

### R10-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

NOTICE 

### To: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. 

### Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite ll-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3'218 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 

### PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 

### I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board**th~** 

### POST -HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL of the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency, copies of which arc herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY~Wdfjft Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: May 17, 2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* * * * * PC 

## # 1 * * * * *

BEFORE 

### THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

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

### & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 

### ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) R10-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF 

### THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorneys, hereby submits its post-hearing corrunents in the above rulemaking proceeding. The Illinois EPA has reviewed the transcript of the April 28, 2010, hearing and responds to the information requested at hearing as follows. Other requests are addressed in the Agency's Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal, filed eoncurrently with these post-hearing

corrunents: 1. The Agency was asked to clarify whether the Agency views chronic exposure differently than repeated exposure for purposes ofthe definition of "extreme performance coating."

. (Transcript 23.15). In this context, the Agency views chronic exposure as encompassing both repeated exposure as well as ongoing exposure. 2. The Agency was asked whether there is a state or federal definition distinguishing industrial grade solvents from other solvents. (Transcript at 25.11). The Agency is currently unaware of any such definition.
3. The Agency was asked whether industrial grade solvents are marketed as such. (Transcript at 26.6). The Agency believes that certain solvents are marketed and packaged for use in industrial settings and would not be generally available to the average consumer. 4. The Agency was asked whether the definition of "military specification coating" includes sealants used 

### in ammunition manufacturing. (Transcript 29.8). The Agency does not intend "military specification coating" to include these sealants. Primer sealants used in ammunition manufacturing are currently regulated under Subpart IT of Parts 218 and 219, and the Agency intends that they continue to be regulated as such. Mouth
I

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* * * * * 

## PC # 1 * * * * *
waterproofing sealants and cap sealants used in ammunition manufacturing are currently regulated as clear coatings or extreme perfoffilance coatings under Section 2181219.204(j). 

### In its Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal, the Agency has proposed a new coating category for these sealants under proposed Section 218/219.204(q)(l).
5. The Agency was asked to provide the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("USEPA") rationale for requiring a 90% capture and control efficiency for add-on controls for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, but only 85% efficiency for controls for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. (Transcript at 30.19). The Illinois EPA is unaware of the analyses employed by USEPA in arriving at these particular efficiency requirements. The Illinois 

### EPA has requested the infonnation from US EPA, and will supplement its post-hearing comments when such information is available.
6. The Agency was asked whether fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities subject to the proposed rule are also subject to additional state volatile organic material ("YOM") requirements, like the 8 Ib/hour rule. (Transcript at 35.9).
Sources subject to the lllinois EPA's proposal rcgarding fiberglass boat manufacturing materials are also subject to all other applicable state YOM requirements, including the 8 lblhour rule.
7. The Agency was asked to comment on whether additional state requirements could deter new fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities from being constructed in lllinois nonattainment areas ("NAAs"). (Transcript 36.11). On a similar note, the Agency was asked to comment on the merits of exempting fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities complying with the proposed regulations from additional state YOM requirements. (Transcript at 36.14).
The Illinois EPA does not recommend exempting sources subject to the proposed Subpart II from other state YOM regulations. Fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities located inside and outside Illinois NAAs are already regulated by a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (''NESHAP'') for the category. The limitations recommended in the Control Techniques Guidelines CCTG") for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials are largely based on this NESHAP, and generally reflect the current state of the industry. Therefore, while the 81b/hr rule may deter new sources from operating in lllinois in general, exempting sources in the NAAs alone from the 8 Ib/hr rule would incentivize sources to operate within the NAAs, and put attainment area sources (which would still be required to comply with both the NEHSAP and the 8 Ib/hour rule) at a disadvantage. The Agency is aware of two fiberglass molding operations located in lllinois attainment areas that currently operate with adjusted standards. Obtaining an adjusted standard would also be an option for a new source located in an Illinois NAA, and would be considered by the Agency and the Board on a case by case basis. In the meantime, the Agency does not recommend exempting a source operating in a NAA from the 8 lblhr

2

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 

### 17, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC 

## # 1 * * * * *

rule based solely on theoretical difficulties the source mayor may not face in complying with such rule.
8. The Agency was asked to provide contact information for the American Architectural Manufacturers Association ("AAMA"). (Transcript at 38.15). The AAMA's address is 1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4268.
9. The Agency was asked whether the definition of "Bed liner" in Section 211.715 should apply only to automobile and light-duty truck coatings. (Transcript 40.1). The CTG for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings and the CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings both contain a similar definition for "bedliner." The only difference is that the automobile/light-duty truck definition applies at facilities that manufacture automobiles and light-duty trucks. The miscellaneous metal and plastic parts definition applies at all other facilities. Consequently, the Agency does not recommend restricting the defmition of "bed liner" to automobile and light-duty truck facilities.
10. The Agency was asked to clarify what the term "Ciclab" in Section 211.5400 references. (Transcript at 43.3). "CIE" stands for 

### Comission lnternationale de I'Eciairage (lntemational Commission on Illumination). 

### It is an independent international board that sets various lighting standards. "CIELAB" is one of two systems adopted by CIE in 1976 as models that show uniform color spacing in their values.
II. The Agency was asked why certain definitions are contained in Parts 218 and 219 instead of in Part 211. (Transcript at 43.22). Specifically, the Agency was asked why definitions for "corrosion resistant basecoat" and "marine engine coating" are included in Section 218/219.204(q)(1), which sets forth the Agency's proposed YOM limitations for metal parts and products coatings. The Agency included these two definitions in (q)(I) because the definitions are currently part of218/219.204(j), which sets forth the existing metal parts and products coatings limitations. The Agency kept the definitions in Section 218/219.204 for consistency's sake, but has no objection to moving the definitions into Part 211 instead.
12. The Agency was asked why Section 219.208(b)(1) references Subpart Z dry cleaners, but 218.208(b)( I) does not. (Transcript at 45.9). The Agency reviewed prior rulemakings and determined that, when these regulations were first promulgated in Part 218 in 1991, Subpart Z was in fact referenced in Section 218.208(b)(I). The Agency is unaware of any subsequent rulemaking that proposed deletion of Subpart Z from Part 218, and is therefore uncertain as to why it.is no longer referenced.
13. The Agency was asked why the Agency's proposed Section 218/219.204(q) was not instead lettered 

### H( 0)" or 

### H(p )." In RI 0-8, the Agency proposed adding to Section 218/219.204 a category for flat wood paneling coatings. In Part 219, the category is in a subsection lettered as 

### "(0)" and in 218, it is lettered as "(p)" (because there is one more existing coating category in Part 218 than in Part 219). In the present rulemaking, the Agency, assuming that RIO-8 will eventually be finalized, used "(q)" for the next coating

3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* * * * * PC 

### # 1 

### * * 

### * * *

category. Many coating subcategories are addressed in (q), and the Agency believed using the same subsection letter for both Parts 

### 218 and 

### 219 would reduce confusion and simplify references. Respectfully submitted,
ILLlNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By: 

### CAaP'Q. 

# W:ilR.z/zflI
Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: May 17, 2010
1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

4

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010
* * •• * PC 

### # 1 * ••••

BEFORE THE ILLINOJS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANlC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) 

### RIO-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

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") amend Parts 211, 218, and 219 of this rulemaking proposal. 

### In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows:
I. On March 8,2010, the Dlinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to amend 35 UI. 

### Adm. Code Parts 211,218, and 219 to control the emissions ofv01atile organic materials ("VOM") from Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product categories. The Illinois EPA
proposes the following amendments to its proposal. 2. At the April 28, 2010, hearing regarding the rulemaking proposal ("hearing"), the Agency agreed to consider including the use of fonnulation data as an option for calculating YOM content of miscellaneous industrial adhesives. (Transcript at 16.23). The Agency recommends inclusion of this option as follows: Section 218.902 a) 

### Testing Requirements

b) 

### Testing to demonstrate compliance with the VOM content limitations in Section 218.90I(b) of this Subpart shall be conducted as follows.

1

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* * * 

### * * PC 

### # 1 

### * * * 

### * *

I)

Section 219.902 a) Method 24, incorporated by reference in Section 218.112 of this Part, shall be used for non-reactive adhesives. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agency and the USEPA that plant adhesive formulation data are equivalent to Method 24 results, formulation data may be used. 

### In the event of any inconsistency between a Method 24 test and a facility's fonnulation data, the Method 24 test will govern; Testing Requirements

b) Testing to demonstrate compliance with the YOM content limitations in Section 219.901(b) of chis Subpart shall be conducted as follows. 1) Method 24, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, shall be used for non-reactive adhesives. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agency and the US EPA that plant adhesive fonnulation data are equivalent to Method 24 results, formulation data may be used. In the event of any inconsistency between a Method 24 test and a facility's fonnulation data, the Method 24 test will govern; 3. At hearing, the Agency was asked whether it should add a provision to its proposal specifying that sources exempt from Subpart 

### JJ because ofthe criteria in Section 218/219.900(a)

must show continued compliance or periodically measure their emissions. (Transcript at 14.1 0).
The Illinois EPA recommends amending Section 218/219.904(a) to include a recordkeeping requirement as follows:
Section 218.904 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements a) The owner or operator of a source exempt from the limitations ofthis Subpart because of the criteria in Section 218.900(a) of this Subpart shall comply with the following: I) By May I, 2011, or upon initial start-up of the source, whichever is later, submit a certification to the Agency that includes: A) A declaration that the source is exempt from the requirements of this Section because ofthc criteria in Section 218.900(a); B) Calculations which demonstrate that combined emissions ofVOM from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source, including related cleaning activities, never equal or


### 2

### Electronic 

### Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010



### * * * * * PC 

### # 1 

### * * * * *

exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 lbs/day), in the absence of air pollution control equipment. To calculate daily emissions of YOM, the owner or operator shall determine the monthly emissions of YOM from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source (including related cleaning activities) and divide this amount by the number of days during that calendar month that miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source were in operation; 2) Collect and record the following information each dav for each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation, maintain the information at the source for a period ofthree years, and provide the information to the Agency upon request: Al The name and identification number of each adhesive as applied by each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation; and B) The weight of YOM per volume and the volume of each adhesive (minus water and any compounds which are specifically exempted from the definition of YOM) as applied each day by each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation;**l~)** 

### Notify the Agency of any record that shows that the combined emissions of YOM from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source, including related cleaning activities, ever equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 Ibs/day), in the absence of air pollution control equipment, within 30 days after the event occurs, and provide copies of such record(s) upon request by the Agency, Section 219,904 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements a) The owner or operator of a source exempt from the limitations of this Subpart because of the criteria in Section 219.900(a) of this Subpart shall comply with the following; I) By May I, 2011, or upon initial start-up of the source, whichever is later, submit a certification to the Agency that includes: A) A declaration that the source is exempt from the requirements of this Section because ofthe criteria in Section 219.900(a); B) Calculations which demonstrate that combined emissions of YOM from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source, including related cleaning activities, never equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 Ibs/day), in the absence of air pollution control equipment. To calculate daily emissions of YOM, the


### 3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC 

### # 1 * * * * *

owner or operator shall detennine the monthly emissions ofVOM from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source (including related cleaning activities) and divide this amount by the number of days during that calendar month that miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source were in operation; 2) Collect and record the following infonnation each day for each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation, maintain the infonnation at the source for a period of three years, and provide the information to the Agencv upon request: A) The name and identification number of each adhesive as applied by each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation; and B) The weight ofVOM per volume and the volume of each adhesive (minus water and any compounds which are specifically exempted from the definition ofVOM) as applied each day by each

. miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation; 

### .:?-;;) Notify the Agency of any record that shows that the combined emissions ofVOM from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations at the source, including related cleaning activities, ever equal or exceed 6.8 kg/day (15 Ibs/day), in the absence of air pollution control equipment, within 30 days after the event occurs, and provide copies of such record(s) upon request by the Agency.
4. 

### In response to a request at hearing, the Agency rccommends anlending Section 211.200
to make the title of the Section consistent with the definition:
Section 211.200 Acrylonitrile-Butadienc-Styrene (ABS) Welding "Acrylonitrile;-butadiene;-styrene (ABS) welding" means, for purposes of Subpart 

### JJ of Parts 218 and 219, any process to weld acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene pipe. 5. In response to a request at hearing, the Agency recommends amending Section 211.2200(a) to indicate the pertinent year for the ASTM and to correct the referencc to 75 percent, as follows:
Section 211.2200 Extreme High-Gloss Coating
"Extremc high-gloss coating" means:



### 4

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010


### * * * * * 

### PC # 1 * * * * *
a) For purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 218.204(q)(1) regarding metal parts and products coatings, a coating which, when tested by ASTM D-523-80, as adapted in 1980, incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 of this Part, shows a reflectance of75 percent or more on a 600 meter; b) For purposes of35111. Adm. Code Section 218.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft coatings, any coating which achieves at least 95 percent reflectance on a 600 meter when tested using ASTM D 523-89, incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 ofthis Part.
6. 

### In response to a request at hearing, the Agency recommends incorporating the definition ofMarinc Coating into the definition of Pleasure Craft Surface Coating, as follows: 8eetiaR 211.3840 MaDRe Ceating "MariRe eaatiRg" meaRS, ferJ3IlFJleses ef8eetiaR 211.4769, any wating, e)[sept IlRsatllrated pelyester resin (fiberglass) eaatings, eeffiainiRg velatile-ergilRie materials and aJlplied by brush, sJlray, reller, er etfter means ta ships aIld beats. Section 211.4769 Pleasure Craft Surface Coating "Pleasure craft surface coating" means, for purposes of 35 111. Adm. Code Parts 218 and 219, any mariRe coating, except unsaturated polyester resin (fiberglass) coatings, containing volatile organic materials and applied by brush, spray, roller, or other means to a pleasure craft.
7. On May 7, 2010, Olin Corporation ("Olin") prefiled testimony with the Board regarding this rulcmaking. Based on discussions with a representative of Olin, and on information contained in Olin's testimony regarding the unique circumstances surrounding coatings/sealants used in ammunition manufacturing, the Agency recommends adding a separate coatings category
to Part 2] 8/2] 9.204(q)(J) for Ammunition Sealants. The Agency also recommends adding several definitions to Part 2]] to define terms relevant to ammunition sealants, and changing the section number of a definition that is currently part of the Agency's proposal: Section 211.481 Ammunition Sealant "Ammunition sealant" means, for purposes of35 lll. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(9)(1) and 219.204(g)(j), a coating applied in the manufacture of ammunition, including cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants. Primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants are not included within this category.
5

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* 

### * * 

### * * PC 

### # 1 

### * * * * *



### Section 211.880 Cap Sealant Cap sealant means, for purposes 0[35111. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(9)(1) and 219.204(9)(1), a coating applied in the manufacture of ammunition to seal the annular crevice between a primer cap and shell case. Section 211.1872 Ejection Cartridge Sealant Ejection cartridge sealant means, for purposes 0[35 111. 

### Adm. Code Parts 218.204(q)(]) and 219.204(9)(1), a sealant applied during the assembly of an ejection cartridge to provide a waterproofbarrier between a shellcase and primer, and between a shellcase and nitrocellulose wad. Section 211.3969.+ Motor Vehicle Weatherstrip Adhesive "Motor vehicle weatherstrip adhesive" means, for purposes of35 1lI. Adm. Code Parts 218 and 219, an adhesive, used at a facility that is not an automobile or light-duty truck assembly coating facility, applied to weatherstripping materials for the purpose of bonding the weatherstrip material to the surface of the vehicle. Section 211.3967 Mouth Waterproofing Sealant Mouth waterproofing sealant means, for purposes 005 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(g)(1) and 219.204(g)(1), a coating applied in the manufacture of ammunition to provide a waterproof barrier between a shellcase mouth and bullet. Section 211.5075 Primer Sealant Primer sealant means, for purposes 0[35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(g)(1) and 219.204(g)(I), a sealant applied in the manufacture of ammunition to assembled primers to maintain the primer assembly and prevent explosive priming mix from dusting during the transfer of primers. Section 218/219.204 Emission Limitations (q) 

### I) 

### Metal Parts and Products

..


## Em Ammunition Sealants i) 

### Air Dried:

6

### Electronic 

### Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, 

### May 17, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC 

## # 1 * * * * *
ii) Baked: 0.61 (506)

8. In response to infonnation provided to the Agency by a stakeholder regarding the unique
circumstances surrounding electrical switchgear compartment coatings, the Agency recommends adding a separate category to Part 218/219.204(q)(I) for such coatings. The Agency also recommends adding a definition to Part 211 for these coatings, and changing the section numbers
of two definitions that are currently part of the Agency's proposal:
Section 211.1 876 Electrical Switchgear Compartment Coatings
"Electrical switchgear compartment coatings" means coatings applied to metal-enclosed compartments that house assemblies of mediumlhigh voltage switchgear, of greater than 1,000 volts AC, for utility distribution in outdoor use. Section 211. I 8716 Electric Dissipating Coating
"Electric dissipating coating" means, for purposes of35lll. Adm. Code 218 and 219, a coating that rapidly dissipates a high-voltage electric charge. Section 21 I .1 

## 87B.+ Electric-Insulating Varnish "Electric-insulating varnish" means, for purposes of35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 218 and 219, a non-convertible coating applied to electric motors, components of electric motors, or power transfonners to provide electrical, mechanical, and environmental protection or resistance. Section 2181219.204 Emission Limitations 

### (q) I) Metal Parts and Products

.

CCl Electrical Switchgear Compartment Coatings i) Air Dried: 0.42 0.80 (3.5) (6.67) ji) Baked: 0.36 0.61

7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 

### 17, 2010

* * * * * 

## PC # 

## 1 * * * * *


### Q.Ql (5.06) DD)BBj All other coatings i) Air Dried: 

### 0040 

### .73 (33) (5.98) ii) Baked: 0.34 0.54 (2.8) (4.52)

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board amend Parts 211,218, and 219 as set forth herein.

Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY:~~~ Dana Vetterhoffe; Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel DATED: May 17,2010
1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, lL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544



### 8

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010


### * * * * * 

### PC 

### # 1 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MA TIER OF: REASONABLY AV AILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA TILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) 

### ) ) 

### ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) 

### RIO-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached POSTHEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL upon the following person: John Theniault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 and electronically to the following persons: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By: C7)r-,.L..o... 

### Dana VetterhOffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: May 17,2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, May 17, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC 

### # 1 * * * * *

Service List RIO-20
Timothy 

### J. Fox Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, lL 6060 

### I foxt@ipcb.state.iJ.us Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel Illinois Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702-1271 virginia.yang@illinois.gov Matthew Dunn, Chief Division of Environmental Enforcement Office of the Attorney General 69 W. Washington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 mdunn@atg.state.il.us Katherine D. Hodge Monica 

### T. Rios Hodge Dwyer 

### & Driver 3150 Roland Ave. P.O. Box 5776 Springfield, lL 62705-5776 khodge®hddattorneys.com mrios@hddattornevs.com Alec M. Davis General Counsel Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, 1L 62701 adavis@ierg.org Heidi E. Hanson Podlewski 

### & Hanson, P.c. 4721 Franklin Ave. Suite 1500 Western Springs, 1L 60558-1720 heh 70@hotmail.com James Sell American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, 

### NW Washington, DC 20005 jsell@paint.org

# C 15

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL MAY 19, 2010

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS ) FROM GROUP 4 CONSUMER AND ) COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS PROPOSED ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILLINOIS ) ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 211, ) 218 AND 219. ) Page 

### J. 

### BOARD 

### RIE:C

# CLERI('~**6~,~** 0

## ~AY l 1 

## 2010 STATE OF' 

### POllution C.J.UJN(J 

### S

- .. ,rO/ 

## So 

# lid R10-20

, 

# . REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the above-entitled cause before Timothy J. Fox, Hearing Officer, taken before Steven J. Brickey, Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at the Thompson Center, Room 11-512, Chicago, Illinois, commencing at the hour of 10:00 a.m. on the 19th day of May, A.D., 2010.

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

## A P PEA RAN C E S:

ROBERT D. RAYMOND PHILIP L. SUTTON DAVID HALCOMB STEVEN ANDERSON KATHRYN HODGE MR. MR. MR. MR. MS. 

# ( ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY: MR. TIMOTHY J. FOX MR. THOMAS E. JOHNSON MR. ANAND RAO MS. ANDREA S. MOORE MS. CARRIE K. ZALEWSKI MR. GARY L. BLANKENSHIP James T. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 814-6660 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY: MR. RORY DAVIS MS. DANA VETTERHOFFER 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794 (217) 782-5544 ALSO PRESENT:

REPORTED BY: Steven J. Brickey, CSR CSR License No. 084-004675 AGENCY

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

# C 16

### BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN TRE MA TIER OF: REASONABLY AV AILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA TILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER 

### & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) RIO-20 (Rulemaking

- Air)



### TESTIMONY OF DAVID HALCOMB
My name is David Halcomb. I am Senior Vice President- Global Awlgrip Business Development, based in Waukegan, Illinois. The Awlgrip® brand is an undisputed world leader in the Yacht Professional Topsides coatings sector. Within the pleasure craft industry, the reputation of Awl grip is one of universal trust and respect. This reputation has been built upon consistent technical irmovation, stringent quality controls and the superlative finish of Awl grip products, which have long represented the standard against which all others are measured. After graduating from the University of North Carolina in 1972, 1 joined the US
Coast Guard and began my career with Awlgrip in 1973. During the early 1990's I had

some involvement with the regulatory work 

### with SCAQMD on Rule 1106.1.
I am here today on behalf of 

### Mr. James Sell, Senior Counsel of the American Coatings Association. Although Mr. Sell is unable to participate in loday's proceedings, he has previously submitted written testimony: "NPCAlFSCT Comments on the Inclusion of South Coast Rule 1106.1 as RACT for Coating of Pleasure Craft (and Associated Parts and Products) into Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts" in connection with Illinois Proposal to Adopt the Pleasure Craft Provisions of the EPA CTG , Case

### ~l.l. 

# 3**~IO** - 

### 2.0**~r** 

## 5 -l't - 

## ,0Number RIO-020, as Proposed Amendments to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 211, 218, and 219. For the sake of brevity, the "EPA Control Technique Guideline for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts" will be subsequently referred to as "the EPA
CTG".

With reference to 

### Mr. Sell's written testimony, the following points are offered for the Board's consideration:



### The Pleasure Craft provisions of 

### the EPA CTG do not represent Reasonably Available Control Tecbnology (RACY) 

### for this industry sector. The Draft EPA CTG did not mention pleasure craft surface coating operations. EPA introduced the language of South Coast 

### Air Quality Management Division Rule
1106.1 ''Pleasure Craft Coating Operations" into the Final EPA 

### eTG. This was apparently done with concern that pleasure craft surface coating operations might otherwise be subject to .the various general categories and more restrictive VOC limits for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (based on SCAQMD Rules I] 07 and 1125) and Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products (based on SCAQMD Rule 1145 and Michigan Rule 336.] 632). However, there was no opportunity for the pleasure craft industry to provide comments on this EPA action.

Had that opportunity been extended, the pleasure craft industry would have provided the following reasons to support our contention that SCAQMD Rule I] 06.1 does not represent RACT:I. The VOC lirnits in SCAQMD Rule 1\ 06.1 are too restrictive to allow coating manufacturers to formulate products that meet the VOC limits, while also meeting
customer's aesthetic requirements and maintaining adequate technical performance. As a result, pleasure craft manufacturers relocated from the South Coast area to other locations in the US. 2. The compliance dates in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and the EPA CTG do not provide sufficient time for the coating manufacturers to formulate products that comply with the restrictive VOC limits, while also meeting the technical performance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure craft manufacturers and

owners. An example is antifouling coatings, which must be registered as biocidal products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and corresponding Stale programs. This process can add years to the actual development and performance testing of new Jower-VOC antifouling coatings 3. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1, like other SCAQMD rules, was developed and adopted to deal with the severe ozone non-attainment conditions in the South Coast 

### air basin. These conditions are not experienced 

### in other areas of California and the US, and thus the provisions of South 

### Coast regulations should not be identified as "RACT" for other areas. 4. Even in the State of Cal ifomia, only five other Districts have found the need to introduce rules to regulate pleasure craft surface coating operations. These rules
differ from SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 in varying degrees. 5. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 was adopted in 1992. Since then, there have been developments 

### in the marine and pleasure craft industry that provide the basis forrevised VOC limits for some coating categories, and the introduction of new categories and VOC limits for other coatings. 

### An example is a new category of "Antifouling Sea1errrie Coat" to allow the use of non-biocidal coatings that comply with Annex I of the International Maritime Organization Antifouling Systems Convention (IMO-AFS), which was written in 2001.



### Development of RACT that is appropriate for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations should address the following points:
1. Consideration of an "Averaging Approach" as an alternative compliance option. This approach is successfully used in Europe to provide flexibility to coating manufacturers and end-use customers to provide VOC emission
reductions while minimizing adverse economic and productivity impacts on each affected facility.
2. Provide appropriate time until the 

### final compliance date to allow the development, testing, and commercial introduction of low- VOC pleasure craft coatings. Rushing products into this market has the potential for disastrous
consequences, as boat builders and pleasure craft owners tend to be conservative; they choose coatings with demonstrated perfonnance that best protect the value of their products/investments. A period of four years is suggested to allow completion of existing development projects to bring
10wer-VOC pleasure craft coatings to the US market.
3. Revise the categories and VOC limits in the CTG to address current and
future product developments in the pleasure craft industry. Examples includerevised VOC limits for several coating categories; a revised definition of
"Extreme High Gloss" topcoats; and the introduction of a new category definition and VOC limit for "Antifouling Sealerrrie Coat" coatings.



### The EPA CTG should be consistent with other EPA rulemaking for this industrial
sector. The pleasure craft industry is aware that EPA is currently evaluating the National Emission Standard for Hazardous 

### Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (40 CPR Part 63 Subpart II ). This process may result in a revised Subpart II MACT Standard andlor a new Area Source Standard for HAPs emissions from Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations. Coatings manufacturers have already provided product information to EPA 

### to assist in this process, and the industry supports rulernaking that will provide a consistent approach to reduce emissions of both VOC and
HAPs in this industrial sector.



### EPA bas indicated that they are reviewing tbe Pleasure Craft provisions of tbe EPA CTG.
In response to industry concerns regarding the Pleasure Craft provisions of the EPA CTG, EPA has held a number of internal meetings to discuss the CTG. We understand that EPA is developing guidance to the Regional Offices and 

### to State and Local air agencies on this issue; and that this guidance will be forthcoming in the near future.

### The Pleasure Craft Industry is 

### ready and. willing to work with Federal, State, and Local air agencies on this issue. The pleasure craft industry was not afforded the usual opportunity to consult with EPA during the development of the EPA CTG. We therefore feel 

### it is imperative to work with
EPA and the Illinois EPA to develop RACT rules that provide reductions in VCC emissions, while meeting the performance and producti.vity requirements of an important
US industry that is under increasing pressure from economic conditions and global competition.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

# C 17• DlCOhIIV(

• HOI SU.M'IJlC; I.E.P.A. Hearing May 19, 2010

Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today, My name is Robert Raymond. My wife and [ founded RayYac Plastic Decorators in 1968, Our son, Robert 

### J. Raymond joined the firm in 1983, He is now an equal share holder. 

### It is our hope his teenage son's may one day continue the family operation, We have been at our current location since 1972, We employ twenty people and sometimes utilize temporary employees, Our gross sales average is about $1,500,000 per year, but in the current economy we are suffering like many others,
We rely on outside firms for advice on how to be in full compliance with all regulations, I am pleased with our record to date and wish to continue to make progress in reducing our YOC emissions, 

### In the early 90's our YOC emission were in the 40 to 45 tons per year range, which is significantly higher than our ten year average of 11 ,2 tons. We currently have an LE.P,A. (C,A.A.P.P,) permit because our MfE for YOM> 25 TPY. We are exempted out from Subpart PP by permit restriction of 

### < 100 Tons YOM per year, Our actual YOM emission history «IS Tons YOM/year for last 10 years), Average of 11.2 Tons YOM per year in that period, Normally we run two shifts per day but recently have been limited to one shift. RayYac Plastics is located on Route 30, four miles from the DeKalb County line. [fwe had built our factory 

### in my wife's home town like she suggested, we would be outside the non-attairunent area. Our present reduction in emissions was achieved in several ways. A large part of the reduction is do simply because of educating ourselves and our employee's. We are sensitive to the issue. 

### In some cases we have decided not to accept jobs that require solvent cleaning or other exira processing. Finally, we invested in two new machines that eliminate the need for basecoats and topcoats in some projects, Unfortunately we can not use this technology over all plastics,
I would invite you to look at our web-site at www,rayvac.com to learn more about our process, 

### On plastics such as polystyrene or ABS traditionally a primer or basecoat needs to be applied. The parts are then baked for one hour at 150 degrees and then processed in our vacuwn metalizer where they emerge bright silver, 

### In some cases a clear or tinted topcoat needs to be applied to add abrasion resistance or color. • ASU"UIV

47W 171 Route 30. Big Aock. IllinOIS 6DSl!·930d 1: 630-556-38&9 I WWN.,ayva'.com I f: &30'556-3993

## ~H. 

## Jf- 

# «.w l.o

# 1]r5-1'l-/O• DU:Ol.o.llIlE

• HOT StAl04hWC

• A.sUIIIBlW

•**P~CUCUIC** Another problem is that different plastics require a different formulation of basecoat. Currently we inventory small quantities of several basecoats and topcoats. The different formulations require different combinations of solvents. We are hopeful that some deregulated solvents can be incorporated into our formulations, thereby reducing emissions.
I know we can continue to reduce our total emissions by working with our suppliers. The new proposed standard of 2.3# per gallon as applied will be difficult to reach. My request is that coaters of plastic, such as ourselves, be allowed to continue operations under existing regulations. 

### An option would be to decrease the current standards but perhaps to 3 Y, or 

### 4# per gallon. More time may be needed to achieve the desired reduction, so perhaps an extension could be considered. The short compliance period of May, 2011 does not give enough time to test alternatives. Finally a small company like ours can not afford to purchase capture and control equipmenl Even if the equipment was given to us, it is doubtful we could afford to operate 

### it. Ten tons of emissions per year just makes this impractical. Assuming a purchase price of $250,000 and operating costs of $75,000.00 per year. Sincerely,

Robert D, Raymond RayVac Plastic Decorators, Inc.

47W171 ROlli! 30. Big Qock, Illinois 60511·9301.1 T: 6JO,5S6-J868 I www.raYV3c.comIF· 630·556·3993

# C 18

### REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD May 24, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) ) ) 

### ORGANIC MATERlAL EMISSIONS FROM) GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL ) PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ) TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, AND 219 ) RIO-20 (Rulemaking

- Air) 

## RECBlveD CLERK'S OFFICE



## MAY,242010 STATE OF IWNOIS 

### Pollution 

### control Board



# lJORIGINAL

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

### The second hearing in this "fast-track" rulemaking docket took place as scheduled on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, in Chicago. The Board received the transcript of that hearing (Tr.2) on Friday, May 21,2010. Section 28.5(f)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act), which addresses hearings in "fast-track" rulemaking proceedings, provides that [t]he third hearing shall be scheduled to commence within 14 days after the first day of the second hearing and shall be devoted solely to 

### the [illinois Environmental Protection] Agency response to the material submitted at the second hearing and to any response by other parties. The third hearing shall be cancelled if the Agency indicates to the Board that it does not intend to introduce any additional material. Public Act 96-0308, eff. Aug. 11,2009 (p.A. 96-0308) (reenacting repealed Section 28.5). 

### In an order dated March 18,2010, the hearing officer directed that "[a]1I pre-filed testimony for the third hearing must be submitted no later than Friday, May 21, 2010." 

### See Tr.2 at 69, P.A. 96- 0308 (requiring pre-filing at least 10 days before hearing). During the second hearing, counsel for the Agency reported that it "is unclear at this time whether it intends to introduce additional material, but we will make that decision within the next couple of days." Tr.2 at 69. Counsel for the Agency agreed that, if 

### it did not pre-file testimony for a third hearing by the deadline of May, 21, 20 10, the Agency would indicate its intent to cancel the third hearing. [d. 

### The Agency did not pre-file testimony for a third hearing on or before the deadline of May 21,2010. Accordingly, the third hearing scheduled to take place on June 2,2010, is cancelled. 

### See P.A. 96-0308 (Section 28.2(f)(3)). Section 28.5(k) of the Act provides that, "[f]ollowing the hearings, the Board must close the record 14 days after the availability of the transcript." P.A. 96-0308 (Section 28.5(k)). With the cancellation of the third hearing, the hearings in this proceeding concluded on Wednesday, May 19, 2010. On 

### Friday, May 21, 2010, the Board received the transcript of the second and final hearing. Accordingly, the statutory 14-day comment period will close Friday, June 4, 2010.

### 2

The "mailbox rule" (35 

### llI. Adm. Code 10 

### 1.3 OO(b )(2)) does not apply to the filing of post-hearing comments, and the Board's Clerk must receive any post-hearing comments before the close of business on Friday, June 4,2010. Although documents may be filed electronically through the Clerk's Office On-Line from the Board's Web site (www.ipcb.state.il.us). all electronic or approved fax filings must be received by the Clerk's Office no later than 4:30 

### PM on June 4, 2010. Questions about electronic filing should be directed to the Clerk's Office at 312-814-3629.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Timothy 

### J. Fox Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, TIlinois 60601 (312) 814-6085 (312) 814-3669 (fax) foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

# C 19

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 1, 2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM) GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL) PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS) TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211,218, AND 219) R 10-20 (Ru1emaking

- Air)

NOTICE OF FILING
TO: 

### Mr. John T. Therriault Assistant Clerk ofthe Board llIinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 6060 I (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) Timothy J. Fox Hearing Officer llIinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite II-500 Chicago, lllinois 6060 I (VIA U.S. MAIL) (SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board S & C ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS EPA'S MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKlNG PROPOSAL, on behalf ofS & C Electric Company, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June I, 2010 Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios HODGE DWYER & DRIVER 3150 Roland Avenue Post Office Box 5776 Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 (217) 523-4900 By: lsI Katherine D. Hodge Katherine D. Hodge

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPERR 10-20 (Rulemaking

- Air) 

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 1, 2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM) GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL) PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS) TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, AND 219) 

### S & 

### C ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS EPA'S MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL

NOW COMES S & C Electric Company ("S & C") by and through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER & DRIVER, pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code 

### § 101.500(d), and for its Response to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's ("Illinois EPA") Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Motion") states as follows: 1. On March 8,2010, the Illinois EPA filed a proposal with the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") to amend the volatile organic material ("VOM") emission requirements for Group IV consumer and commercial products. The lllinois EPA's amendments, as proposed, raised issues regarding use of extreme performance coatings on electrical switchgear compartments manufactured by S & C. 2. S 

### & C engaged in a series of discussions with the Illinois EPA regarding the impact of the proposed amendments on the facility's coating operations. On April 28, 2010, the Board held its first hearing in this matter. At hearing, S 

### & C's counsel questioned the Illinois EPA on its intcrpretations of the definitions of "extreme high gloss coatings" and "extreme performance coatings." Transcript, In the Maller o/, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions From Group IV
Consumer 

### & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 

### 35 

### fll. Adm. Code 21 I, 218, and 219, RI0-20 at 18-20,22-28,47-49 (llI.Pol.Control.Bd. April 28, 2010). After

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 1, 2010

the first hearing, S & C continued discussions with the Illinois EPA regarding revisions
to the proposal to address the issues raised by S & C regarding coatings for the electrical switchgear compartments that it manufactures.
3. On May 17, 2010, the Illinois EPA filed its Motion and stated:


### In response to information provided to the Agency by a stakeholder regarding the unique circumstances surrounding electrical switchgear compartment coatings, the Agency recommends adding a separate category to Part 2l8/219.204(q)(I) for such coatings. The Agency also recommends adding a definition to Part 211 for these coatings

... Motion at 7. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA proposed language for the definition of "electrical switchgear compartment coatings" in new Section 211.1876 and for the YOM emission limits for electrical switchgear compartment coatings in new Sections 218.204(q)(1)(CC) and 219(q)(1)(CC). 

### Id.
4. S & C supports the proposed new Sections 211.1876 and 218/219(q)(I)(CC) and requests that the Board adopt such sections as described in the lllinois EPA's Motion. WHEREFORE, S 

### & C ELECTRIC COMPANY respectfully requests that the Board grant the Illinois EPA's Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal as to Sections 211.1876 and 218/219(q)(1)(CC). Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 1,2010 Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios HODGE DWYER & DRIVER 3150 Roland Avenue Post Office Box 5776 Springfield, llIinois 62705-5776 (217) 523-4900 SCEL:004/FifIResponse to IEPA Motion to Amend By: 

### lsi Katherine D. Hodge Katherine D. Hodge

2

### Electronic 

### Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 1, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Katherine D. Hodge, the \mdersigned, hereby certify that I have scrvcd the attached S & C ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS EPA'S MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL upon: Mr. John T. Therriault Assistant Clerk of the Board Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060 I via electronic mail on June 1,2010; and upon: Virginia 

### 1. Yang, Esq. Ill. Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
Dana E. Vetterhoffer, Esq. Ill. Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East Post Office Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Heidi E. Hanson, Esq. Podlewski & Hanson, P.C. 4721 Franklin Avenue Suite 1500 Western Springs, Illinois 60558-1720
James Sell, Esq. American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Matthew 

### J. Dunn, Esq. Chief, Environmental Bureau North Office of the Attorney General 69 West Washington Street Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Alec M. Davis, Esq. TIl. Environmental Regulatory Group 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 6270 I Timothy J. Fox, Esq. Hearing Officer DJinois Pollution Control Board I 00 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, llIinois 60601

by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield, Illinois on June 1,2010.
/sl Katherine D. Hodge Katherine D. Hodge SCEL:004/FilingslN"OF & cos - Response to IEPA Motion to Amend

# C 20

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3,2010


### * * * * 

### * PC #2 * * * * *

BEFORE THE 

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACn FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC 

### lvIA TERIAL EMISSIONS 

### FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS T035 

### ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218 

### AND 219



### NOTICE
To: John TherJ:iault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Bo:ud James R. Thompson Center 

### ]00 West Randolph, Suite 

### 11-500 Chicago, 

### Ulinois 6060]-3218
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### R2010-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

Please take notice that] have today filed e1ectrorucally with the Office of the Pollution Control BOlll'd the POST 

### -HEARlNG COMMENTS Of OUN CORPORATION, a copy of which is herewith served electronica/ly upon you. ]fyou would like 

### a hard copy of such COIIlllllints, please conUlct the undersigned and a 

### hard copy 

### will be sent to you. .

Respectfully Submitted., OLIN CORPORATION

# ~~ By: Phili 

### L. Sutron

Dated: June 3, 

### 2010. 600 Powder 

### Mill Road East Alton, IL 

### 62024 (618) 

### 258-3780

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010


### * * * * * PC #2 

### * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MA TIER OF:
REASONABLY AVAn.ABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 

### TIL ADM. CODE 211, 218 AND 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) R20l0-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

POST·HEARING COMMENTS OF OLIN CORPORATION Olin Corporation (Olin) would like to take this opportunity to follow up on its testimony prefiled on May 7,2010 and supplemented at the hearing on May 19,2010 with the illinois Pollution Control Board ("IPCB") concerning RIO-20 (''Testimony''). Olin is submitting these
comments in support of the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency's ("Agency's") Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal filed May 17,2010 ("May 17 Motion") and to support an expected additional Motion by the Agency to further amend the rulemaking proposal. Olin's Testimony indicated that Olin had had very little time to evaluate the proposed rule and the potential for impacts on its operations but that jt was concerned that the proposed limits, if applicable to its East Alton, lllinois, operations, could well be technically and/or economically infeasible for ammunition manufacture. 

### In addition to other concerns, Olin discussed three changes that were proposed in RlO·20 that could have a significant impact on Olin's East Alton ammunition manufacturing operations. These three changes included the following:

o Addition of the new military specification coating category; o Addition of the new all other coating category; and o The short time frame to meet the new emission limitations.

Page 1 of7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010
* * * * * PC #2 * * * * *

Olin has been unable to locate any infonnation that indicates that ammunition manufacturc was considered when determining the limits proposed in RlO-20 and the proposed categories will likely affect ammunition manufacturing in ways unanticipated by the Agency. Olin has discussed ammunition manufacturing with the Agency, and the Agency has proposed to the IPCB, or agrecd to propose to the IPCB, feasible changes to the proposed rules to address ammunition manufacturing. 

### May 17 Motion
As a result of a question asked at the April 28,2010 hearing for RlO-20 concerning whether the definition of "military specification coating" included sealants used in ammunition manufacturing (Transcript of April 28, 2010 Hearing, page 29, line 8), on May 17, 2010 the Agency responded in its filed Post-Hearing Comments. In the Post-Hearing Comments

- Item 4,
page 1, the Agency said that: The Agency does not intend "military specification coating" to include these sealants. Primer sealants used in ammunition manufacturing are currently regulated under Subpart TT of Parts 218 and 210, and the Agency intends that they continue to be regulated as such. Mouth waterproofing sealants and cap sealants used in ammunition manufacturing are currently regulated as clear coatings or extreme perfonnance coatings under Section 218/219.201U). In its Motion to Amend Rulcmaking Proposal, thc Agency has proposed a new coating category for these sealants under proposed Section 218/219.204(q)(l)

.

. The Agency has indicated, therefore, that it is its intention that sealants uscd in ammunition manufacturing be subject to the current limits. In the May 17 Motion, the Agency proposed new definitions in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 211 for Ammunition Sealant (§ 211.481), Cap Sealant (§ 211.880), Ejection Cartridge Sealant (§ 211.1872), Mouth Waterproofing Sealant (§ 211.3967), and Primer Sealant (§ 211.5075). The Agency also created a new emission limit category under 35 IlL Adm. Code §§ 218/219.204(q)(l) for Ammunition Sealants. Olin supports the May 17 Motion. The changes

Page 2 of7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, 

### Clerk's Office, 

### June 3, 2010

••••• PC #2 * * * • •

proposed confonn the proposed rule to the Agency's intent that Cap Sealants and Mouth Waterproofing Sealants continue to be subject to their current liniits. Additional Changes Related to Primer Sealants and Ejection Cartridge Sealants
As indicated by Olin at the May 19,2010 hearing for RIO-20, the May 17 Motion addressed Olin's concerns related to the feasibility ofliniits for Cap Sealants and Mouth Waterproofrng Sealants, but Olin still has concerns with the feasibility of the proposed limits as they may relate to Ejection Cartridge Sealants and Primer Scalants. Although in the May 17 Motion the Agency indicated its intent that Ejection Cartridge Sealants and Primer Sealants continue to be regulated under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 219, Subpart IT, without additional changes to the proposed rule, if Ejection Cartridge Sealants and Primer Sealants are classified as coatings they could be subject to either the "Military Specification Coating" liniitation proposed for 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### §§ 2181219.204(q)(l)(L) or the "All Other Coatings" liniitation proposed for 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 2181219.204(q)(l)(BB) (or(DD) in the May 17 Motion). Following the May 19, 2010 hearing, Olin held addition discussions with the Agency regarding Ejection Cartridge Sealants and Primer Sealants. As a result, the Agency has agreed that it will propose the following additional changes to the proposed rule in RIO-20 and the amendments proposed in the May 17 Motion:

Section 211.481 Ammunition Sealant "Ammunition sealant" means, for purposes of 35 DJ. Adm. Code Parts 2l8.204(q)(I) and 219.204(q)(1), a coating applied in the manufacture of ammunition, including cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants. Primer sealallts afla ejeetisfi eartHage sealaflts are fist iRelllsea withiH tms eategsry. Section 211.1872 Ejection Cartridge Sealant Ejection cartridge sealant means, for purposes of 35 TIl. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(q)fl1 and 219.204(q)fl1, a sealant applied during the assembly of an ejection cartridge to
Page 3 of7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010
••••• PC #2 •••••

provide a waterproof barrier between a shellcase and primer, and between a shellease and the RitreeellHlese wad. Section 211.5075 Primer Sealant Primer sealant means , for purposes of 35 

# m. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(q)tB and 219.204(q)fB, a sealant applied in the manufacture of ammunition to assembled primers to maintain tbe primer assembly and prevent explosive priming mix from dusting during the transfer of primers.

. Section 218/219.204 Emission Limitations q) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings and Plastic Parts and Products Coatings On and After May 1,2011. On and after May 1,2011, the owner or operator of a miscellaneous metal or plastic parts coating line shall comply with the limitations below. The limitations in this subsection (q) shall not apply to aerosol coating products, er-powder coatings>..2!: primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants used in ammunition manufacturing. Primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants shall instead be regulated under Subpart IT of this Part. Olin supports the above additional changes; and if the Agency does not move the lPCB to include these changes, then Olin moves that the above changes be incorporated into the rulemaking. Incorporation of these changes into the proposed rules for RI 0-20 would resolve the potential issues Olin had with the Ejection Cartridge Sealants and Primer Sealants. 

### Additional Changes Related to Application Methods Following the May 19,2010 hearing on RIO-20, Olin determined that the proposed new 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

### §§ 218/219.219(b)(6) could also have a significant adverse impact on Olin's ammunition manufacturing operations, depending upon how the section is interpreted. 1bis proposed section requires that all coatings be applied using one or more of the specified application methods. These specified application methods include: A) Electrostatic Spray; B) High volume low pressure (HVLP) 

### spray; C) Flow Coating;

. D) Roll Coating; E) Dip Coating;
Page 4 of7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * *

F) Airless Spray; G) Air Assisted airless spray; or H) Another coating application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equal to or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying if such a method is approved in writing by the Agency.
The proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 218/219.219 would apply to the application of the Cap Sealants and Mouth WaterproofIng Sealants subject to the proposed 351ll. Adm. Code §§ 21812l9.204(q). The application of Cap Sealants and Mouth WaterproofIng Sealants onto ammunition does not follow standard coating operations because the sealant is only applied to a very small, precise area of the arrununition. Historically at Olin, Cap Sealants and Mouth WaterproofIng Sealants have been applied using a Capper machine that uses a wieking process. 

### In this process,

a pin or plunger is dipped in the sealant and is then moved close enough to the small precise part of the ammunition where the sealant then wicks onto the appropriate area. TIlls process is
similar in effect to the process described in the "Flow Coating" defInition in the proposed rule,
but the coating is not applied through or with a fluid nozzle. No air is supplied to aid the transfer of the sealant.
Conversion to Capper machines that apply the sealant through a nozzle to meet the "Flow Coating" defmition would cost several hundred thousand dollars, but would provide no net environmental benefIt. Olin believes that the historical process of applying the sealant by wicking is an efficient and effective method to transfer the sealant to the ammunition, without
the addition of air or other gases. There would not be sufficient time, nor would it be economically reasonable, to convert all machines to meet the flow coating defInition should the Agency not be able approve the wieking application method as an alternate application method
per the proposed 

## 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 2181219.219(b)(6)(H). Comparison of Olin's wicking

PageS of?

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * *

method to the transfer efficiency achieved by the HVLP spraying as specified under the proposed
35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 2181219.219(b)(6)(H) would be difficult since the ammunition sealant is applied to only to a small specific area on the ammunition, which is very different from transferring the coating to a large surface area as in HVLP spraying. The wicking method is an efficient method to transfer the sealant to the ammunition in order to meet product specifications.
As a result of discussions with the Agency on Olin's use of a wicking process to apply sealants to ammunition, the Agency has agreed to and Olin supports the following addition to the proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 2181219.219(c): 5) For Ammunition Sealant Operations: application of cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants. Incorporation of this addition to the proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 2181219.219(c) would assure Olin that it could continue to apply cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants under the

same conditions that are currently regulated by its Title V Permit.

Page 6 of7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010

* * * * * 

## PC #2 * * * * *

Olin appreciates the opportunity to comment on Ihe proposed regulations and respectfully asks 

### Ihe lPCB to 

### amend the proposed 

### rule as discussed 

### in the 

### May 17 Motion 

### and as discussed in 

### these post-hearing 

### comments.

Chief Engineer, 

### Environmenm1 Services 

### Olin COI]lor<llton, Wincheslel' 

### Division

Page 7of7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * *

BEFORE THE lLLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE 

### MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECBNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA TILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP 

### N CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218 AND 219 ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) R2010-20

. (Rulemaking-Air)



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, certify that I have served the attached Post-Hearing Comments of Olin COIporation on the date of June 3, 2010 upon the following persons by electronic mail:

. John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James 

### R. .Tbompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 INDIVIDUALS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 S1. Louis, MO 63105 (314) 480-1648 

# J

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 3, 2010

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * *

SERVICE LIST FOR PCB NO. R 2010-20
Timothy J. Fox Hearing Officer lllinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 foxt@ipcb.state.il.us Matthew J. Dunn Chief, Division of Environmental Enforcement Office of the Attorney General 69 West Washingtou Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 mdunn@atg.state.il.us
Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 NOlth Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 dana. vetterhoffer@TIIinois.gov Heidi E. Hanson Podlewski & Hanson, P.c. 4721 Franklin Avenue Suite 1500 Western Springs, IL 60558-1720 heh70@hotmail.com Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel lllinois Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702-1271 virginia. yang@illinois.gov Alec M. Davis General Counsel TIlinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams SI. Springfield, IL 62701 adavis@ierg.org

Katherine D. Hodge Monica T, Rios Hodge Dwyer & Driver 3150 Roland Avenue Post Office Box 5776 Springfield, IL 62705-5776 khodge@hddaltorneys.com rnrios@hddattorneys.com
James Sell Senior Counsel American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Wa,hington, DC 20005 jsell@painl.org

# C 21

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MA TIER OF: REASONABLY AV AILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA TILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) 

### RIO-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

NOTICE 

### To: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. 

### Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 

### PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board the POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, copies ofwmch are herewith served upon you.

Respectfully suJ>mitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# BY~~ Dana Vettert10ffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel DATED: June 4, 2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD



### IN THE MA ITER OF: REASONABLY AV AILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA TILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

### ) ) 

### RIO-20 (Rulemaking-Air)

POST -HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

### The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorneys, hereby submits its post-hearing comments in the above rulemaking proceeding. The Illinois EPA filed this rulemaking on March 8, 20 I O. Subsequently, several interested parties approached the Agency with concerns regarding specific porlions of the proposal, or identified issues at the hearings that took place on April 28, 2010, and May 19, 20 I O. The Agency engaged in negotiations with these stakeholders, resulting in a Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal (''Motion to Amend"), filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board'') on May 17, 2010. The Agency also filed post-hearing comments following the April 28 hearing, and submits these post-hearing comments following the May 19 hearing. These documents, along with information adduced at hearing, resolve many ofthe

concerns expressed by interested parties regarding the proposed rule. Based on the Agency's
current understanding, the only portions of the rule that may still be disputed involve Section 218/219.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft surface coatings. The proposed revisions outlined in these comments, however, sufficiently address the concerns set forth in the pleasure craft industry's testimony.

1

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

Extension of Compliance Date 

### In response to a request at the May 19,2010, hearing regarding the rulemaking proposal ("hearing") that the Agency provide additional time for sources to comply with the proposal, the Agency recommends extending the compliance date one year, from May 1,2011, to May I,
2012. Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources Exempt from Subpart JJ 

### In its Motion to Amend, the Agency recommended amending Section 218/219.904 to include additional recordkeeping requirements for certain exempt sources. (Motion to Amend No.3). In 

### response to a request at hearing, the Agency recommends further amending Section
21 8/21 9.904(a)(2) to change the recordkeeping requirements from daily to monthly, as follows:
Section 218/219.904 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements a) 2) Collect and record the following information each monthl!ay for each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation, maintain the information at the source for a period of three years, and provide the information to the Agency upon request: A) The name and identification number of each adhesive as applied by each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation; and B) The weight ofVOM per volume and the volume of each adhesive (minus water and any compounds which are specifically exempted from the definition of YOM) as applied each monthl!ay by each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation; Testimony of Robert Ravrnond At hearing, Robert Raymond offered testimony on behalf of Rayvac Plastic Decorators,
Inc. (''Rayvac''). Mr. Raymond testified that the 2.3 Ib/gal YOM limitation for "general one component" coatings, set forth in the Agency's proposed Section 21 8/2 19.204(q)(2)(A) regarding miscellaneous plastic parts and products coatings, would be "difficult of reach." Mr.

2

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010



### * * * * * PC #3 

### * * * * *

Raymond recommended that plastic coaters be allowed to continue operating under existing regulations, or that the proposed limit be raised to 3.5 or 4 Ib/gal. He also recommended that the compliance date be extended beyond May 1, 20J 1. (Testimony of Robert Raymond).
When questioned regarding the coatings used by Rayvac, and the categories in Section 218/219.204(q) that such coatings may fall into, Mr. Raymond acknowledged that Rayvac's coatings may not even be subject to the "general one component" YOM limit referenced above. 

### Mr. Raymond testified that approximately 20 percent ofRayvac's business regards automotive products. Proposed subsection (q)(3) of Section 2181219.204 sets forth limitations for automotive/transportation plastic paits and products. All of the limits set forth in such
subsection are higher than 2.3 Ib/gal, and some are significantly higher. 

### In fact, the YOM limits
for the majority of the coating categories in subsection (q)(3) are equal to or higher than the 3.5

to 4 lb/gal limit that Mr. Raymond recommended in his testimony. Mr. Raymond testified that
he would consider several of the limits set forth in these categories to be reasonable. 

### (See 5/19/10 Transcript at 59.23-60. J). Similarly, 

### Mr. Raymond testified that 85 percent ofRayvac's business
involves vacuum metalized coatings. He further testified that the 6.7 Ib/gallimit in Section 218/219.204(q)(2) for vacuum-metalizing coatings was achievable based on current technology. (5/J 9/J 0 Transcript at 61.4-61.24).
Mr. Raymond indicated that he is willing to work with the Agency to determine which coating categories in the Agency's proposal apply to the specific coatings used by Rayvac. (5/J 9/J 0 Transcript at 62. J 4). The Agency is willing to assist sources in making this
determination as well. Additionally, the Agency is recommending that the compliance date for
the Agency's proposal be extended from May 1,2011, to May 1, 2012, in part to provide sources

3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010



### * * * * * PC #3 

### * * * * *

like Rayvac additional time to work with the Agency, properly categorize their coatings, and
determine a compliance strategy. 

### In light of what appears to be a misinterpretation regarding the limits applicable to Rayvac's coatings, the YOM limit for "general one component" coatings should not be changed. Testimony of Olin Corporation
Olin Corporation ("Olin") pre filed testimony on May 7, 2010. In its testimony, Olin expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposed YOM limits for the military specification coatings and "aU other coatings" categories, as set forth in Section 218/219.204(q)(1), on sealants used in ammunition manufacturing. Olin indicated uncertainty regarding how certain sealants would be Classified by the Agency, and argued that the proposed
YOM limits would require costly and infeasible product reformulation. Olin requested that the
definition for "military specification coating" exclude ammunition sealants, and that primer
sealants and ejection cartridge sealants used in ammunition manufacturing be exempted from the proposed rule.
Based on negotiations with Olin, the Agency recommended in its Motion to Amend that a separate coatings category be added to Part 218/219 .204( q)(1) for ammunition sealants and that several definitions be added to Part 211 to define terms relevant to ammunition sealants. (Motion
to Amend No. 7). The Agency also clarified in its post-hearing comments following the April 28 hearing that it did not intend for military specification coatings to include sealants used in
ammunition manufacturing, and that it intended for primer sealants to continue to be regulated
under Subpart TT of Parts 218 and 219. (Post-Hearing Comments No.4).
At hearing, however, Mr. Sutton, a representative of Olin, expressed concerns that the Agency's proposal could stiU be interpreted to subject primer sealants and ejection cartridge

4

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

sealants to the limits for military specification coatings or "all other coatings." (5/19/10 Transcript at 8.18-9.17). The Agency agrees that such an interpretation is possible. Consequently, the Agency proposes amending Section 21 8/21 9.204( q) to provide that subsection (q) does not apply to primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants, as set forth below. The Agency also proposes amending definitions in Part 211 to be consistent \vith this change. Additionally, the Agency recommends deleting the word "nitrocellulose" from the
definition of "ejection cartridge sealant" in response to information provided by Olin that certain
wads are instead made of plastic. Olin also provided information regarding the difficulty of complying with the application method requirements set forth in Section 218/219.219(b)(6) for
mouth waterproofing sealants and cap sealants. 

### In response to this information, the lllinois EPA
recommends exempting these sealants from such application method limitations.
The Agency believes that its Motion to Amend and the revisions set forth in these posthearing comments resolve all ofthe concerns set forth 

### in Olin's prefiled testimony, as well as the

concerns Olin expressed to the Agency following the hearing:
Scction 211.481 Ammunition Sealant
"Ammunition sealant" means, for purposes of35 

### Ill. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(q)( I) and 219 .204( q)( I), a coating applied in the manufacture of ammunition, including cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants. Primer sealants ana ejeetiefl ellflfiage sealants are flet illelllaea witfjiR this eategery. Scction 211.1872 Ejection Cartridge Sealant Ejection cartridge sealant means, for purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(q)EB and 219.204( q)EB, a sealant applied during the assembly of an ejection cartridge to provide a waterproof barrier between a shellcase and primer, and betwccn a shellcase and thellitreeelllllese wad.
Section 211.5075 Primer Seal ant

5

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

Primer sealant means, for pUlposes of 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code Parts 218.204(q)(B and 219.204(q)(B, a sealant applied in the manufacture of ammunition to assembled primers to maintain the primer assembly and prevent explosive priming mix from dusting during the transfer of primers.
Section 218/219.204 Emission Limitations q) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings and Plastic Parts and Products Coatings On and After May 

### I, 2011. On and after May 

### I, 2011, the owner or operator of a miscellaneous metal or plastic parts coating line shall comply with the limitations below. The limitations in this subsection (q) shall not apply to aerosol coating products, ef-powder coatings, or primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants used in ammunition manufacturing. Primer sealants and ejection cartridge sealants shall instead be regulated under Subpart IT of this Part. Section218/2l9.219 Work Practice Standards for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings c) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this Section, the application method limitations in subsection (b)(6) shall not apply to the following:

4) For plastic parts and products coating operations: airbrush operations using 18.9 liters (5 gallons) or less of coating per year;7 5) For ammunition sealant operations: cap sealants and mouth waterproofing sealants. Testimony of Pleasure Craft Surface Coaters On May 

### 7, 2010, James Sell, senior counsel for the American Coatings Association ("ACA"), submitted to the Board prefiled testimony titled "NPCAlFSCT Comments on the Inclusion of South Coast Rule 1106.1 as RACT for Coating of Pleasure Craft (and Associated
Parts and Products) into Final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts" (uNPCA prefiled testimony"). At hearing, David Halcomb presented additional testimony on behalf ofJames Sell.
In its prefiled testimony, NPCA argues that the YOM limitations set forth in proposed Section 218/219.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft coatings exceed reasonably available control technology ("RACT") and should not have been included in the United States Environmental



### 6

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

Protection Agency's ("US EPA") final Control Techniques Guidelines ("CTG"). NPCA also
argues that the pleasure craft coatings industry has not been given sufficient time to produce coatings that both comply with the YOM limitations and meet the perfonnance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure craft manufacturers and owners. NPCA recommends that the rule be
revised to include an annual averaging approach, or, if an averaging approach is not possible, to increase the limits for several coating categories, add an additional coating category, and revise
the defmition of "extreme high gloss topcoat."
As discussed above, the Agency recommends extending the compliance date one year, to May 1,2012. The Agency also recommends providing pleasure craft surface coaters an

. averaging option, as requested by NPCA, set forth below. The Agency provided James Sell,

David Halcomb, and several other pleasure craft industry representatives a draft of the proposed
Section 218.207(m) regarding averaging. When given the opportunity to comment on the Agency's proposed language at a subsequent conference call, pleasure craft representatives did

not express any objection to such language.
The Agency also proposes amending Section 218/219.211 to set forth recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources utilizing the averaging alternative:
Pari 218:
Section 218.207 Alternative Emission Limitations a) Any owner or operator of a coating line subject to Section 218.204 of this Subpart, except coating lines subject to Section 218.204(q)(6), may comply with this Section, rather than with Section 218.204 of this Subpart, if a capture system and control device are operated at all times the coating line is in operation and the owner or operator demonstrates compliance with subsections (c), (d), (e), 

### (I), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), or (I) of this Section (depending upon the source category) through the applicable coating analysis and capture system and control device efficiency test methods and procedures specified in Section 218.105 of this Part and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in Section 218.211 ( e) of this Subpart; and the control device is equipped with the applicable monitoring



### 7

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

equipment specified in Section 218.1 

### OS( d) of this Part and the monitoring equipment is installed, calibrated, operated and maintained according to vendor specifications at all times the control device is in use. A capture system and control device, which does not demonstrate compliance with subsection (c), (d), (e), 

### (£), (g), (h), (i), 

### (j), (k), or 

### (I) of this Section may be used as an alternative to compliance with Section 218.204 of this Subpart only if the alternative is approved by the Agency and approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision. The. owner or operator of a pleasure craft surface coating operation subject to Section 218.204(q)(S)(A) through 

### (01 of this Subpart may also comply with subsection fm) of this Section, rather than with Section 218.204 of this Subpart.

m) Emissions Averaging Alternative for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Operations. The owner or operator of a source with coating operations subject to the requirements of Section 218.204fq)(S)(A) through (G) may elect to include such operations in the emissions averaging alternative. Coating operations utilizing this alternative shall comply with a source-specific YOM emission limit on a 12- month rolling average basis, calculated at the end of each calendar month. Subject coating operations that do not utilize the emissions averaging alternative, and coating operations subject to Section 218.204fq)fS)fH), shall comply with the requirements in Section 218.204(g)(S). 218.20S. or 218.207(1). as applicable. as well as with all other applicable requirements in this Subpart.
J) The total actual YOM emissions determined by Equation 2 shall be equal to or less than the total allowable YOM emissions detennined by Equation I. The owner or operator of a source SUbject to this subsection fm) shall use Equation I below to determine the total allowable source-specific YOM mass emission limit for pleasure craft coatings included in the emissions average: Equation 1:
G 

### VOMAlJowable = 

# I LIMjV j i=A

Where:



### L1M= --!- Total allowable mass ofVOM that can be emi tted from the pleasure craft coating operations included in the average. expressed in kilograms per 12-month period.
The applicable YOM content limit for a specified pleasure craft coating category 

### 8

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

from Section 218.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) expressed in kilograms per liter. 

### V= -!- Volume of specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 2l8.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) used in the past 12 months, excluding water and any compounds that are exempt, expressed in liters. Subscript denoting a specific pleasure crafl coating category from Section 2l8.204(q)(5)(A) through (G). 2) At the end of the first 12-month averaging period. and at the end of each subsequent month, the owner or operator of a source subject to this subsection (m) shall use Equation 2 below to calculate the total actual YOM emissions from the pleasure craft coating operations included in the emissions average. Equation 2:

Where:

VOM=**~-**



### V= -'-1- YOM emissions calculated using the YOM content for all coatings from Section 2l8.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) that are included in the average and the volume of those coatings used, expressed in kilograms. Weighted average of actual YOM content for a specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 2l8.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) expressed in kilograms per liter.
Total volume of specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 218.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) used in the past 12 months, excluding water and any compounds that are exempt, expressed in liters. Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft


### 9

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

coating category from Section 218.204(q)(S)(A) through (G). 3) For purposes ofEguation 2. the owner or operator of a source subject to this subsection (m) shall use Equation 

### 3 below to calculate the weightedaverage 

### YOM content for each coating included in the emissions average for the previous 12 months. Equation 3:

Where:



### VOM= -,-",=-

y.=-JWeighted average of actual 

### YOM content for a specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 218.204(g)CS)(A) through CG) expressed in kilograms per liter. 

### YOM content of each pleasure craft coating used over the previous 12 months within a specific pleasure craft coating category, i.
Volume of each pleasure craft coating used in the previous 12 months. excluding water and any compounds that are exempt. within a specific pleasure craft coating category. i. Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft coating category from Section 218.204(g)(S)(A) through (G). Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft coating within a specified coating category. 

### h Number of coatings applied applied within a specified coating category, i.

Section 218.211 Recordkeeping and Reporting c) Pilly owner or operator of a coating line subject to the limitations of Section 218.204 ofthis Subpart other than Section 218.204(a)(1 

### )(B), (a)(I 

### )(C), (a)(2)(B),
10

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010


### * * * * * PC #3 

### * * * * *

(a)(2)(C), or (a)(2)(D) of this Subpart and complying by means of Section 218.204 of this Subpart shall comply with the following:

3) On and after a date consistent with Section 218.106 of this Part, the owner or operator of a subject coating line shall notify the Agency in the following instances: A) Any record showing violation of Section 218.204 of this Subpart shall be reported by sending a copy of such record to the Agency within 30 days following the occurance of the violation. B) At least 30 calendar days before changing the method of compliance from Section 218.204 of this Subpart to Section 218.205 or Section 218.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (d)(l), er-(e)(l), or Ih)(]) of this Section below, as applicablerespeetively. Upon changing the method of compliance from Section 218.204 of this Subpart to Section 218.205 of this Subpart or Section 218.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (d), el'-( e). or Ih) of this Section, !!§ app lica b leresp esti vely. d) Any owner or operator of a coating line subject to the limitations of Section 218.204 of this SUbpart and complying by means of Section 218.205 of this Subpart shall comply with the following:

3) 

### On and after a date consistent with Section 218.106 of this Part, the owner or operator of a subject coating line shall notify the Agency in the following instances: A) Any record showing violation of Section 218.205 ofthis Subpart shall be reported by sending a copy of such record to the Agency within 30 days following the occurrence of the violation. B) At least 30 calendar da 

### ys before changing the method of compliance with this Subpart from Section 218.205 of this Subpart to Section 218.204 or Section 218.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (c)(I), el'-(e)(I), or Ih)(l) of this Section, as applicablerespestiYel)'. Upon changing the method of compliance with this subpart from Section 218.205 to Section 218.204 or Section 218.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection


### II

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

(c), er-( 

### e), or (hI of this Section, as applicablereSjleetiYely.

h) Each owner or operator of a pleasure craft surface coating operation subject to the limitations in Section 2l8.204(g)(5)fA) through fG) of this Subpart and complying by means of Section 2l8.207(m) of this Subpart shall comply with the following: I) 

### By a date consistent with Section 218.106 of this Part, or upon initial startup of a new pleasure craft surface coating operation, whichever is later, or upon changing the method of compliance for an existing subject coating operation from Section 218.204, 218.205. or 218.207(1) of this Subpart to Section 218.207(m) of this Subpart, the owner or operator of a subject coating operation shaH perfom all tests and calculations, and submit to the Agency the results of such tests and calculations, necessary to demonstrate that the subject coating line will be in compliance with Section 218.207(m) on and after a date consistent with Section 218.106 of this Part, or on and after the initial start-up date. 2) On and after a date consistent with Section 218.106 ofthis Part, or on and after the initial start-up date. whichever is later. the owner or operator of a subject pleasure craft surface coating operation shall: A) CoHect and record the foHowing infomation each month: i) The amount of each pleasure craft surface coating used in each subject coating operation; ji) The YOM content of each pleasure craft surface coating used in each subject coating operation: iii) Total monthly YOM emissions for all subject pleasure craft surface coating operations: B) At the end of the first l2-month averaging period. and at the end of each subsequent month, coHect and record the foHowing information: i) 

### The YOM mass emission limit for all subject pleasure craft surface coating operations for the applicable 12-month averaging period, with supporting calculations;
iiI The total actual emissions of YOM from aH subject pleasure craft surface coating operations for the applicable 12-month averaging period:

12

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010



### * * * * * PC #3 

### * * * * *

C) Notify the Agency inwriting of any violation ofthe requirements of Section 218.207(m) within 30 days following the occurrence of the violation and provide records documenting the violation upon request by the Agency; D) Notify the Agency in writing at least 30 calendar days before changing the method of compliance with this Subpart from Section 2l8.207em) to Section 218.204, 2 J 8.205, or 218.207(1). Upon chancing the method compliance, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements set forth in subsection ec), (d), or (e) of this Section, as applicable: E) Maintain at the source all records required by this subsection (h) for a minimum of three years from the date the document was created, and provide such records to the Agency upon request.



### Part2J9.·

.
Section 219.207 Alternative Emission Limitations a) Any owner or operator of a coating line subject to Section 219.204 ofthis Subpart, except coating lines subject to Section 219.204(q)(6), may comply with this Section, rather than with Section 219.204 of this Subpart, if a capture system and control device are operated at all times the coating line is in operation and the owner or operator demonstrates compliance with subsection (c), (d), (e), 

### (f), (g), 

### (h), (i), (j), or 

### (Ie) ofthis Section (depending upon the source category) through the applicable coating analysis and capture system and control device efficiency test methods and procedures specified in Section 219.105 of this Part and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in Section 219.21 I (e) of this Subpart; and the control device is equipped with the applicable monitoring equipment specified in Section 219.1 05(d) of this Part and the monitoring equipment is installed, calibrated, operated and maintained according to vendor specifications at all times the control device is in use. A capture system and control device, which does not demonstrate compliance with subsection (c), (d), (e), 

### (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), or 

### (Ie) of this Section may be used as an alternative to compliance with Section 219.204 of this Subpart only if the alternative is approved by the Agency and approved by the USEP A as a SlP revision. The owner or operator ofa pleasure craft surface coating operation subject to Section 219.204(g)(5)(A) through.(G) of this Subpart may also comply with subsection (I) of this Section, rather than with Section 219.204 of this Subpart.



### 13

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

I) 

### Emissions Averaging Alternative for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Operations. The owner or operator of a source with coating operations subject to the requirements of Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through 

# em may elect to include such operations in the emissions averaging alternative. Coating operations utilizing this alternative shall comply with a source-specific YOM emission limit on a 12- month rolling average basis, calculated at the end of each calendar month. Subject coating operations that do not utilize the emissions averaging alternative, and coating operations subject to Section 219.204(q)(5)ffi), shall comply with the requirements in Section 219.204(q)(5), 219.205. or 219.207(k), as applicable. as well as with all other applicable requirements in this Subpart. 1) The total actual YOM emissions determined by Equation 2 shall be equal to or less than the total allowable YOM emissions determined by Equation I. 

### The owner or operator of a source subject to this subsection (]) shall use Equation 

### I below to determine the total allowable source-specific YOM mass emission limit for pleasure craft coatings included in the emissions average: Equation 

### I:
G 

### VOMAllowabJe 

# = 

# I L1M j 

### V j i=A



### Where:
VOMAliowablC



### V·= -!-

1= 

### Total allowable mass ofVOM that can be emitted from the pleasure craft coating operations included in the average, expressed in kilograms per 12-month period.
The applicable YOM content limit for a specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) 

### expressed in kilograms per liter. Volume of specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through 

# em used in the past 12 months, excluding water and any compounds that are exempt, expressed in liters. Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft coating category from Section 2l9.204(q)(5)(A) through (G).



### 14

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * PC #3 * * * * *

2) At the end of the first 12-month averaging period, and at the end of each subsequent month, the owner or operator of a source subject to this subsection (l) shall use Equation 2 below to calculate the total actual 

### YOM emissions from the pleasure craft coating operations included in the emiSSIOns average. Equation 2:

Where: 

### YOM emissions calculated using the 

### YOM content for all coatings from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) that are included in the average and the volume of those coatings used, expressed in kilograms. Weighted average of actual 

### YOM content for a specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through (0) expressed in kilograms per liter.
Total volume of specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) used in the past 12 months, excluding water and any compounds that are exempt, expressed in liters. Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(g)(5)(A) through (G). 3) For purposes of Equation 2, the owner or operator of a source subject to this subsection (l) shall use Equation 

### 3 below to calculate the weightedaverage 

### YOM content for each coating included in the emissions average for the previous 12 months. Equation 3:


## If=l VOM j 

### lj YOM! 

### =**~n** 

### V L.j=l 

### J 15

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* 

### * * 

### * * 

### PC #3 * * * 

### * *

Where:
VOM= --1-



### VOM·= --,---",=-



### V·= -J- 

### Weighted average of actual YOM content for a specified pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through (G) expressed in kilograms per liter.
YOM content of each pleasure craft coating used over the previous 12 months within a specific pleasure craft coating category, i. Volume of each pleasure craft coating used in the previous 12 months, excluding water and any compounds that are exempt, within a specific pleasure craft coating category, i. Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft coating category from Section 219.204(q)(5)(A) through (G). 

### Subscript denoting a specific pleasure craft coating within a specified coating category, h 

### Number of coatings applied applied within a specified coating category, i.
Section 219.211 Recordkeeping and Reporting c) Any owner or operator of a coating line subject to the limitations of Section 219.204 of this Subpart other than Section 219.204(a)(l)(B), (a)(I)(C), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), or (a)(2)(D) of this Subpart and complying by means of Section 219.204 ofthis Subpart shall comply with the following:

3) On and after a date consistent with Section 219.106 of this Part, the owner or operator of a subject coating line shall notify the Agency in the following instances: A) Any record showing violation of Section 219.204 of this Subpart shall be reported by sending a copy of such record to the Agency within 30 days following the occurrence of the violation. B) At least 30 calendar days before changing the method of
16

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * PC #3 * * * * *

compliance from Section 219.204 to Section 219.205 or Section 219.207 ofthis Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (d)(I), er(e)(1 ), or (h)(I) below, as applicableresjleelively. Upon changing the method of compliance from Section 219.204 to Section 219.205 or Section 219.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (d), er(e), or (h) oflhis Seclion, l!§ applicableresjleeli'fely. d) Any owner or operator of a coating line subject to the limitations of Section 219.204 of this Subpart and complying by means of Section 219.205 of this Subpart shaH comply with the foHowing:

3) On and after a date consistent with Section 219.1 06 of this Part, the owner or operator of a subject coating line shall notify the Agency in the following instances: A) Any record showing violation of Section 219.205 of this Subpart shall be reported by sending a copy of such record to the Agency within 30 days following the occurrence of the violation. B) At least 30 calendar days before changing the method of compliance with this Subpart from Section 219.205 to Section 219.204 or Seclion 219.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (c)( 1), er( e)(I), or (h)(l) of this Section, as applicableresjleelively. Upon changing the method of compliance with this Subpart from Section 219.205 to Section 219.204 or Section 219.207 of this Subpart, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements of subsection (c), 

### er (e), or (h) of this Section, as applicablereSjleeli\<ely.

h) Each owner or operator of a pleasure craft surface coating operation subject to the limitations in Section 219.204(g)(5)(A) through 

## (m of this Subpart and complying by means of Section 219.207(1) of this Subpart shall comply with the following: I) By a date consistent with Section 219.106 of this Part, or upon initial startup of a new pleasure craft surface coating operation, whichever is later, or upon changing the method of compliance for an existing subject coating operation from Section 219.204, 219.205, or 219.207(k) of this Subpart to Section 219.207(1) of this Subpart, the owner or operator ofa subject coating operation shall perform all tests and calculations, and submit to the



### 17

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * 

### * * *

Agency the results of such tests and calculations, necessary to demonstrate that the subject coating line will be in compliance with Section 2I 9.207(1) on and after a date consistent with Section 219.106 of this Part, or on and after the initial start-up date, 2) On and after a date consistent with Section 219, I 06 of this Part, or on and after the initial start-up date, whichever is later, the owner or operator of a subject pleasure craft surface coating operation shall: A) Collcct and record the following information each month: i) The amount of each pleasure craft surface coating used in each subject coating operation; ii) The YOM content of each pleasure craft surface coating used in each subject coating operation; iii) Total monthly YOM emissions for all subject pleasure craft surface coating operations; B) 

### At the end ofthe first 12-month averaging period, and at the end of each subsequent month, collect and record the following information: i) 

### The YOM mass emission limit for all subject pleasure craft surface coating operations for the applicable 12-month averaging period, with supporting calculations; ij) The total actual emissions ofVOM from all subject pleasure craft surface coating operations for the applicable 12-month averaging period; C) Notify the Agency in writing of any violation of the requirements of Section 219.207(1) within 30 days following the occurrence of the violation and provide records documenting the violation upon request by the Agency; D) Notify the Agency in writing at least 30 calendar days before changing the method of compliance with this Subpart from Section 2 I 9.207(1) to Section 219.204, 219.205, or 219.207(k). Upon changing the method compliance, the owner or operator shall comply with all requirements set forth in subsection (c), (d), or (e) of this Section, as applicable;



### 18

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 

### 4,2010

* * * * * PC #3 * * * * *

El Maintain at the source all records required by this subsection (hl for a minimum of three years from the date the document was created, and provide such records to the Agency upon request.

As outlined above, instead of requiring that sources comply with a specified YOM
limitation for each coating applied, the proposed averaging option would allow subject sources to
average all coatings included in the emissions alternative, and comply with a source-specific

mass YOM emission limitation on a 12-month rolling average basis. This compliance alternative
will allow sources to continue using the low volume, high-YOM coatings that NPCA argues are
necessary to comply with customer specifications regarding appearance, as sources can then
average with high volume, low-YOM coatings used in the source's operations to bring the
source's total actual YOM emissions below the mass emission limit. 

### (See, e.g., 5/19/1 0 Transcript at 29-30).
This alternative method of compliance is sufficient to address NPCA's concerns without raising any of the proposed YOM limitations. First, the averaging approach proposed by the Agency provides great flexibility. Unlike other averaging provisions that only allow a source to
average coatings within a particular coating category, such as the daily-weighted averaging option set forth in the existing Section 218/219.205, the Agency's proposal allows pleasure craft

sources to average coatings from seven different coating categories (those set forth in Section 218/219.204(qX5)(A) through (G». Averaging across coating categories, and source-wide, is
not generally allowed in Subpart F of Parts 218 and 219, unless specifically provided for. Second, including a source-wide averaging alternative among multiple coating categories
and raising YOM limitations is unnecessary. The increased YOM limits recommended in
NPCA's pre filed testimony were contemplated as an alternative to averaging. 

### (See NPCA prefiled testimony, p. 

### 10. "If [averaging] is not deemed possible, then points 2 and 3

19

### Electronic 

### Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * PC #3 * * * * *

[recommending higher YOM limits] should apply." 

### See also 5/19/1 0 Transcript at 29.1). Providing both averaging and higher limits would therefore give pleasure craft coaters a windfall
and run contrary to the goal of reducing emissions of YOM. For example, if pleasure craft

coaters supposedly need a YOM limit of 600 gil for extreme high gloss coatings in the absence
of averaging, including averaging should reduce that need greatly, ifnot completely. Averaging
thus negates the need for higher limits, particularly limits as high as those set forth in NPCA's

comments. Moreover, NPCA has not submitted sufficient evidence to support the addition of
both averaging and higher limits, making inclusion of both provisions inappropriate. Finally, an averaging option will address the guidance anticipated from USEPA concerning pleasure craft coatings. 

### It is Illinois EPA's understanding that US EPA intends to issue a letter or memorandum providing states more latitude in deviating from the CTGrecommended YOM limits for pleasurc craft coatings or 

### in instituting compliance alternatives.
Thc avcraging option, as discussed above, should sufficiently implement this guidance by providing sources a compliance alternative that addresses concerns regarding the use of higherYOM coatings. The Agency's recommended compliance date extension is sufficient to address NPCA's

concerns as well. While the NPCA has stated several times that thc pleasure craft industry has
not had sufficient time to develop compliant coatings, the YOM limits for extreme high gloss coatings and finish primer coatings were promulgated in South Coast in 1994, and the limit for
antifoulant coatings in 2001. 

### (See 5/19/1 0 Transcript at 25.10-26.1). Sueh limitations may at the
time have been considered "technology-forcing"; however, sixteen ycars, and for antifoulant coatings, nine years, have subsequently passed in which this technology devclopment could have
occurred. While David Halcomb testified at hearing that advancements have been made in that

20

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * 

### * * * 

### PC #3 * * 

### * * *

time, he did not specify exactly what those advancements entailed. The Illinois EPA is unclear

as to the focus of such efforts, or whether they resulted in actual YOM reductions. Further, the Illinois EPA is unaware of any pleasure craft surface coating operations currently located in Illinois non attainment areas. David Halcomb testified at hearing that he does

not know of any such sources either, or of any sources planning to begin operations in Illinois
nonattainment areas. (5/19/ I0 Transcript at 32.4). Any supposed hardship a source would

encounter in complying with the Agency's proposal by the extended compliance datc is, at this point, purely theoretical. A further extension is therefore unwarranted.
The Agency recognizes that a disparity may still exist between certain proposed YOM
limits and the current state of the pleasure craft industry. The Agency's proposed averaging approach and compliance date extension, however, are sufficient to fill in any gaps that remain.
American Coatings Association's Additional Recommendations
On May 28,2010, the Illinois EPA received correspondence from James Sell of the ACA indicating that the ACA intends to file comments with the Board requesting revised definitions
for pretreatment wash primer and high gloss topcoat, and "additional technology information demonstrating the need for our requested limits." (Letter from Jim Sell 

### 51281J 0). This is the first
time the Agency has been made aware of any issues with the definitions for these two terms, which have not been previously raised in this rulemaking. 

### As the correspondence from Mr. Sell
did not include the proposed revisions, an explanation as to why such revisions are needed, or a
copy of the "additional technology information," the lIJinois EPA is unable to comment on the
substance of the recommendations.
The I1linois EPA would like to note, however, that it had no involvement in the USEPA's
inclusion of the limits from South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1106.1 in the



### 21

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

* * * * * PC #3 * * * * *

final CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts, in USEPA's proposed definitions, or in USEPA's detennination that such provisions constitute RACT. USEPA chose to include these limits and definitions for pleasure craft surface· coatings in the CTG, and lllinois is now required
to either adopt regulations to implement such provisions or adopt alternative approaches that constitute RACT, which are then subject to USEPA approval as a state implementation plan ("SlP") revision. The lllinois EPA developed its rulemakingproposal based on these requirements. While the Agency anticipates guidance from USEPA allowing states greater deference in implementing the CTG's recommendations for pleasure craft coatings, the scope of the future guidance and the amount of discretion the USEP A intends to allow states is currently unknown. Again, since the Agency has not had the opportunity to review the ACA's additional proposed revisions or any evidence supporting the revisions, the Agency is currently unable to evaluate the likelihood that such amendments will be acceptable to USEPA. The Agency therefore recommends against including these revisions in the rule at this time.
Respectfully submitted, lLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:CZ)a H6

# JroJi.iJ:d/~ Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: June 4, 2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544


### 22

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #3 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROl" BOARD



### IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLA TILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV 

### CONSUMER & 

### COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, and 219 ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### RIO·20 (Rulemaking-Air)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached POSTHEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY upon the following person: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 and electronically to the following persons: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

..


### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:c::zn. <P 

### Dana Vetterhoffer Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: June 4, 2010 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794·9276 (217) 782-5544

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010



### * * * * * PC #3 

### * * * * *

Service List RIO-20
Timothy J. Fox Hearing Officer lIlinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 6060 I foxt@ipcb.state.il.us Virginia Yang Deputy Legal Counsel Illinois Deparlrnent of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, 

### II.. 62702-1271 virginia.yang@illinois.gov Matthew Dunn, Chief Division of Environmental Enforcement Office of the Attorney General 69 

### W. Washington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, 1L 60602 mdunn@atg.state.il.us Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios Hodge Dwyer 

### & Driver 3150 Roland Ave. P.O. Box 5776 Springfield, IL 62705-5776 khodge®hddattorneys.eom mrios®hddattorneys.eom 

### Alee M. Davis General Counsel Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, 1L 62701 adavis@ierg.org Heidi E. Hanson Podlewski 

### & Hanson, P.C. 4721 Franklin Ave. Suite 1500 Western Springs, 1L 60558-1720 heh 70@hotmaiJ.eom James Sell American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 jsell@paint.org

# C 22

# •

• 

# ,-.- ••• 

# • AmericanCoatings ASSOCIATION
JunB4,2010 Rory Davis Air Quality and Planning Illinois EPA
RE: CIISG No: R2010-020 In the Matter of: Reasonably AvaIlable Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material emissIons from Group IV Consumer & Commercia.l Products Dear Mr. Davis: First let me thank**~'ou** and the other lIIinols EPA staff for meeting with us by way of a phone conference on May 26.

. Several points**w~re** raised and discussed on the 

### call. A forthcoming USEPA clarificaUon as to its view of the status of the Pleasure Craft CTG was discussed. The memorandum dated June 1, 2010 is now out and has been sent to all of the USEPA regional offices, including Region 5. (Attached) The iS5lJll it resolves concerns the normal presumption 

### that usually attends CTGs that. 

### while called 'guidance', they in 

### fact normally ceny a presumption Ihal they constitute RAeT and therefore should 

### be included in any SIP If there are affected sources in a state's ozone nonattainment areas.



### 1 1500 RHODE ISLAND AV ENUE N.W.· WASHINGTON, DC 20005 • T 202.462.6272 • r 202.462.8549 • www.p.lnl.orQ

2'01 6vS8291>202 WdTO'Z OIOZ 1>0 unrAs you can 800 from the 

### memo, to the extent there Is such en infonnlll policy generaUy, thet has been removed 

### nere, and the states are now free to determine a RACT standard for pleasure craft coabngs on its own ments, considering USEPA's reference to Rule 11 06.1 as one factor

OAQPS RECOMMENDATION Afh:r careful evaluation of the is.""" raised by the pleasure craft tndwtry, OAQPS iii r:ecomrneDding lhaI.lbc pleasure craft ind1lSlly work wi1h sta1e ag<:o<:ies <hiring their MeT ru1J> development process to lllI!eOS what is re<t!OIl8ble for the specific 80= regulll1ed beCause the CTa impose no 1081111y binding n:quircments on llily entity, including pleasure craft coaling faciliti"". CAA Soclion J 7.2(0)(1) provides that SIP. for nonstteioment or_ mUlll include "reasonably avllilable control meBSUJ'e''' (RACM), incltUling RACT, far ",,"«eo of cmiB.ia

.... Sectioa 182(b)(2){A:' p<avidos lbat for<:ertllin llOIlIlttainment areas, stlIte.9 rousfrevi811 their SIPs ro include MeT for ca.eh categary of VOC sowoes covered by a 

### CTQ document issued between November IS, 1990, and the date O{anai:nmenl The CTG are intended to provide stat_ IUld local 

### Sir poUlltioo COnllal3l1lhoritie. with infonualion. to as&st tbem In determining RACT far VOC, 

### BaSfd ao awllshle lnfarmotion BDd dabJ. EPA!ulo provided recommendatiaD5 for RACT for MMPPC openrti""". iJocludlng pleasure craft coating opcmlons. in !he MMPPC CTG. Stll\es can u.so tho ==ndaliOtl' from the MMPPC 

## em to inform their own detenn1nation "" to what constitllleo MCT far 

### \Toc for pleasure craft coaling opBrlllioni in their pertioulor ozone nonatlBimncn.t o.reas.
In evaluallng !his issue please consider the information we have already providad. I wish to emphasize that the technology issues raised In this Information is 

### in fact a consensus position of ACA's Marine Coatings Committee. which Includes other pleasure craft coat ngs manufacturers, s'uch as Jotun, as well as raw malerials supplien; of antifouling materials, such as Arch Chemical. See list at end of letter. While not all ofthese companies make pleasura craft coatings, many are sufficiently familiar with 1he coalings chemistries involved to concur in the ACA position, We also discussed averagine as II potential solution to the technology i8allealnvolving some of lhe limits. A clarlflcation from our end is in order here. It concerns lhe following statement 

### In our previously submitted position paper about which there may be some confusion on the part of USEPA and the state agencies

.

• Th/lre cen be no doubt that the imp/amentaVon of the provisions of Sourh Coast, AQMD Rule 1106_1 (in its present form) In tha 

## erG to regUlate the 

## vac content of pleasure creft coatings, Into the SIP's of ozone non-attainmant states is overly 

### severe end will hava serious negative affects on the pleasure craft coating industry in Ihese areas. NPCA respactfulfy ask the EPA to revIse the eTG in the following way, to melm 

### J1 mora relevant for tha US pleesuro craft coating industry: Regulate 

## vae amissions from facilitias using p/e8sura craft coatings by inclUding en Bvaragfng approach as 

### a compliance option If this is nof deemed possible than points 2 and 3 shopld apply.

2

6ioS9C!9toC!OC!**~dlO:C!** OIOC! toO unrAmend 

### Ihs eTG "Finish Primer!Surface" VOC limit from 420 to 600g1L for 

### a 4 year interim period 

### to ailow coating manufacturers end users sufficient time 10 develop and implament campliBnt coatings. Meke char.ges /hat 

### ere required 

# to tha Rula 1106./ provisions oftha CTG 

### with immediate and permanent effect e8 follows, Add en additional speciality category of "Antifouling SaalerlTie Coet" with 

### vac limit of 42GgIL to elign the eTG with tfleIMOAFS; Amend "Other Substrate Antlfoulant Cae ling" VOC limit from 330g1L to 400g/L; Amend the "Extrems High Gloss" 

## voe limit 

## rom 420 gIL 

### to 800 

### 'gIL, reflectlng the v9/Y sr-ecialised nature of /he coatings in this category; Revise the coating category dBfinition of "Extreme High Gloss Topcoat" to read: "Extreme high gloss coating meens eny coeting which achieves greeter than 90 percant reflectance on 

### a 60" meter when tested by ASTM Method 0 523-89"

In addition, the pleaSllre craft industry has already worked with EPA staff to proVide informallon to support the development of 

### a Pleasure Craft MACr standard. Thus

_ request: Provisions of the pleasure creft categories and 

## vac limits of the eTG must be consistant with the development of requirements in the planned PfB8SlJrB Craft MACr standard. "

The languaga "If this is not deemed possible then points 2 and 3 should apply" has apparently been laken to maan that the industry would accept ail of the proposed limits so long as it can average 

### them. That was not the Intent of the statement. Rather it was inter.ded to refer back to the earlier discuB88d European system In the position paper for avereglng emiaaions from pleasure craft coatings operations which operate under the European Solvent Emissions Directive or SED. 'Council Directive 1999/131EC 

### of 11 \-larch 1999 on the limitation 

### of emissions of voletile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain aclivities and installations' See hltp:llec.europa.euJenvironmentlair/oollulants/palnls directlve.hlm The SED does not specify VOC limits for individual products or coalings operations, Ratner, under it emissions from various operations are regulated by being assigned a total amount of annually authOfized 

## vae emissions and they in turn determine the annual coatings usages that will keep them al or under their assign&<! limit. In contrast, the US system. at least with respect to coatings. operates by assigning a I1mlt for each coating line or prodUct lirst, and then allows them to go higher 0fI some of the limits if these are compensated for by lower VOC contents in other products below the compliant limits.



### 3**s~saZ9~ZOZ ~d'O:Z**  

### o.oz**~o** uncHence the language 'if this not deemed possible" -meaning the full El,) SED systemthen an accurate determination of what constitutes RACT for certain limits must be undertaken. Notwithstanding this, 

### we have plugfJed in the**lim~s** that are in Rule 1106.1 for one US' pleasure craft operation, TIme did not permit additional operations to be examined. But in any event, based on the Initial results for that one operation, 

### it appears that averaging even with the limits seems to result In a compliant averaging regime even using the US approach, at least for thet operation. This Is because primers can have lower 

## voe content thsn the specified limits in Rule 

### 1106.1. ' This still begs the question we have rais'ed that some of the limits are not RAGT as that term is defined and has been historically Interpreted. And that for this single operation, averaging allows one to limp past these 'unreasonable' limits. does not cure the fundamental problem- some of the limits remain non-RAeT. In short, the US system of averaging may not alleviate this problem In all cases, as for example, where 8 yard primarily refurbishes pleasure craft and thus may not use the same amount 

### of primar 

### 8S one that builds exclusively 

### from scratch. One member has done a Quick revifl"N of this issue based on usages of an operation Ihat largely refurbishes and has found that the US avaraging regime will not work there. See attached slides. The averaging exercise, however, did show that 

## vee limits that are In fact RACT may , 

### be able 

### to be established for pleasure craft operations that will in deed lead to reduced 

## voe emissions from pleasure craft operations. And we would like to meet with you to diacuss this in a full blown technology review, Involving se
... aral 

### of our members. Since technology R&D matters may be proprietary, this may require individual meellngs with companies or Individual submissions 

### from them that will be treated as confidential business information (CBI). In addition to the points raised in our earlier submission we, also request consideration of the following additional definition for pretreatment wash primers, a tilchnology that post-ds!es 

### the**ea~y** 

### 1990', RUle 

### 1106.1 Revised definition ror this category to read: "Pretreiltment Wash primer means a coating which contains no m'ore than 25 percent solids. by weight, and at laast 0.1 percent edds, 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." A full summarized view of our request is reflected below:

4**s·~ Svse29v20~**  WdlO'2 0102 VO unt

### s·c! Our RACT CTG proposal 

## vee 

# vee content content Coating Category gil 

### IlIL Extreme High Gloss CoatlnQ· 

### 490 

### 600 HiQh Gloss Coalina 

### 420 

### 420 Pretreatment wash primer- 

### 780 780 Finish Primer/Surfacer 420 600 HiQh Build Primer Surfacer 

### 340 

### 340 Aluminium Substrate Antifoulant Coaling 

### S60 580 other Substrate Antlfoulant Coating 

### 330 

### 400 All ather pleasure craft surface coatlngs for metal or plastic 

### 420 420 Antifouling Sealerllie coat (new ca 

### 420

• Revised deflnltion for this category to reild "Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating which achiaves greater than 

### 90 percent reflectance on a 60· melar when tested by ASTM Method**D52~9'**

··Revised definition for 1hls category to read**"Pre1r~ent** Wash primer means 

### a 

### ooa1:ing which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by welght, and 

### at leas: 0.1 percenl 

### acids, by weight; is used 10 provide surface etching; and Is applied directly to fibreglasa and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and ildhesion of subsequent coatings"



### 5

Wd20:Z 0102**~o** 

## unrIn c1Mlng, 

### we greatly appreclate your taking the lime to listen to us. Now, in light oflhe USEPA June t, 20 t 0 memo, 

### we ·urge you to reopen this matter for 

### a tuB discussion of 8 RACT standard for pleasure craft coatings. Since illinois has cetermined thoo currently there are no affected sources in 

### Its ozone noneltainment areas 10 which the proposed regulation would apply, it seems that there is time to do this righi:, especially in light of the June 1,2010 memo form USEPA.

### incer~iY. 

# j JJ 

# I 5e1l$-fAf enior Counsel ACA Affected and Potentially Affected Marine Coalinga Committee Membel'6 PPG Janus NCP Coatings Carboline Jo1un Pettit Paint

- DOW International PalnVAKZO American Chemel Arch Chemicals CMPUSA Sherwin Williams



### 6**~dGO:G** OIOG**~O** unrUNrrED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PAOTECnoN AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK,!IIe 27711



## dUN 0 1 

# 2010 OFF«::E Of AlA Ol.lll..m' F'tJ\NNIJ'4l**ANosrA~** 

## MEMORANDUM SUBJEcr: Control Technique GuidelineB for Miscellaneous 

### M<:tB1 and Pll1Stic 

### Part Coatings

- Industry Request for R.econsi i FROM: Stepheo D. PBge, Du,'**~r.L.~** Office of Air Quality P TO: Chief, Air Branch RegioM I-X The purpose of this memomndum is to infonn EPA Regional Offices that member! of the pleasure 

### cmft industry have" contacted EPA to request cbtmges to the Control Techniques

.

. Guidelines (CTG) for Mi.scellancoU!l MeW and Plastic Part Coatings (MMPPC) (EPA4531R-08-

0373). This memorandum serves as a remindecto EPA Regional Offices of the role that CTG play in the State lmj)lementation Plans (SIP) process for ozone nollllltainment &:rea8. CTG provide information and recommendations for state IIDd local air pollution control agencies to conside:r 

### w.hoo <U:veloping rules to meet the Clean Air Act's (CAA) reasonably 4VaiJable control tc:clmology (RACT) requirements. Specifically, 

### we reiterare that the informaHon contained 

### in CTG, including the MMPPC eTG, is provided only as guidance. The eTG do not impose any legally binding requirements on 2(JY entity

.. State and local air pollution controt agencies are free to implemJ:nt other teclmica1ly-80und approaches that are consistent with the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. Therefore, EPA does 

### tlOt"inten4 to revise the MMPPC 

### eTG. Ins1elld, EPA is 

### reoommending 

### thII1 the 

### pleasure craft industry 

### work**tog~er** with 

### state agencies in the RACT 

### rule development process for MMPPC to assess what is reasonable for the specific**SO~** regulated· under each state's roles, EPA will evaluate the stato-developed RACT rules and determine 

### throllgh notice lIIld oomment ru.letoaking 

### in the SIP approval 

### process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT requirern.ents of the CAA and EPA's reguJations, BACKGROUND. 

### The MMPPC 

### eTa were published on Oetobec 7, 2008 (73 FR 5&486). 

### On September 14, 2009. EPA 

### was conlactcd by the :pleasure craft industry· willi a request for EPA to reconsider some of the e:rni"ssion**li~i18** for volatile organic compounds (VOC) re<:ommended 

### in the MMPPC CTG. 

### In its letter to EPA. industry asserted that three of the emission limits fOT VQC. recommended in the MMPPC CTG for plea3llre craft, were too low considering 

### the perfunniUlce reqllb-ements of pleasure craft coatings, and that overa11, the VOC emission 

### limits recommended 

### in the MMPPC

k!I&IMt Add

..... (URL)· http:Hwww

.. pa.gov**~""""""'""","","._*",,~O'B_I"".,** 

# __**{IoIlnmnn>5"_~""')**

8'''' 6lr9829lr202**~d20:2** 0102 1r0 unC2 

### eTG did not 

### represot 

### RACT fur the national pleasure craft coatings industry. To get further clarifielllion of the issues. EPA held an induslIy conference cell and spoke wlth individu..a1 industry members on several :>ther 'occasions. The pleasure craft induslIy presented what they deemed l0- be technological and :feasibility challenges to meeting the VOC emission limiu recommended in 

### the MMPPC eTG. Table 2 ofilie MMPPC CTG rocommeads tlw fullowing 

## voe rontent 

### limits (expressed in 

### ten:ns of lUlIS9 ofVOC per volume of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied) for surfe.ce coaling o!' pleasure omft:

Table 1. PI.Mure Craft Slirface Co.tine VOC Content Limits

# ::~~7~$~~:"[::f:'?';"!;;:<:'~~;~f!f1iJ::::~~1Wi~~t~~f~;ye~[;8~1**~~f!~:?!~ff":i:** Extreme**Hi~** Glos£ Topcoat 0.49 4.1**Hi~** Gloss Topcoat 0.42 3.5 Pretrealment Wash Primers 0.78 6.5 Finish Primer/Surfilcer 0.42 3.5 Hillh Build Primer 

### E urfacer 0.34 2.8 }J.uminwn SubstJ'ate Antifowant CoatinR 0.56 4.7 Other Substrate Antiiou1ant r"'A.f1nn 0.33 2.8 All other pleasure cr.aft sur:fucc: coatings for metal 0.42 3.5 or plastic
Also. the MMPPC CTG provide an option to meet altanale emissioa rate limitll based on lowVOC cOatings and add-<m controls. Table 10 (lfthe MMPPC CTG recommends the following emission rate lim.its for pleasure craft operations:
Table 10. Pll\ll.8DI'e Craft Surface Coating VOC EmiBsion Rate Limilll (VOC per Volume Solids) 

# •

Extrema 

### Hi«h 010&8 

### TODCOat High 

### Gloss Toocoat PretrealImmt W 

### MIl Primers Finish PrimulSurfarer

. 

### Hiltb Bui Id Primer Surfacer Aluminum Substrete Antifoulam Coating

. Other Substrate Antifoulant Coatinl'! All other pleasure craft surfuce coatings for metal or piwrtic 1.10 0.80 6.67 0.80 0.55 1.53 0.53 0.80 

### 9.2 6.7 

### 5S.6 

### 6.1 

### 4.6 12.8 4.4 

### 6.7

Th.e three plOOSllre craft categories that industry requested EPA 

### to reconsider were extrt:me gloss, high gloss md mtifo\llent coatings. Industry urged EPA to revise the lIi1MPPC CTC to include an averaging approach 8S a compliance option to allow pleasure craft coating facilities to use 8 cOmbination oflugh srullow VOC-containing prOduct:lllS long as lhe average value was kept

SloSBZ9loZ0a WdEO'Z Oloa loO un,3.

below a level specified by EPA. In summary, thcl pleasure craft iJldustry suggested that the eTO be revised to include (one or all of) the foUowing measureS: 1; Regulate VOC an.iBlIions from facilities using pleasure 

### craft coatings by inc1udin8 an averaging .approach Il3 It compliance option. rft!J;s is not deemed possible, then points 

### :2 and 3 shoUld IlIlply.
2. Amend the MMPPC CTG "Pinish Primer/Surfacer" VOC limit from 420'gIL 

### to 600g1L for 

### a fOllI-year interim period to allow coating 

### manufanturers lUld users sufficient time to develop and impJ.ement compliant coatings.
3. MBke pemument changes 

### to the MMPPC CfG with 

### immediate 8Dd permaru:nt effects, lIS follows:

• Add 

### w additional specialty category of "Antifouling Sealerrrle Coat" 

### with VOC limit of to 

## align the MMPPC CTG with tlu: lntematiooaI Maritime 

### Organ; ZIllion's International ConventioD on the 

### Corrtrol ofHannful Antifouling 

### Systems on 

### Ships;

• Change the VOC emission Jimilll in the calegory, "Oilier Substrate Antifoulant Coating" from 330gfL to 400gfL;

.
• Change the VOC c:mission limits in 

### the category, "Extreme High Gloss" from 420 

### gIL to 600 gII." reflecting the very 1IJlccialixed IIlI.tUre of tlu: coatings in tbill cstegory; and

•**~vise** the coating category definition**o~** "Extreme High Gloss Topcoat" to reed: 

### "ExtretTU! high gloss coaling mean.; any coating which achieves gnaJer /IIan 

### 90 percent r8jlact=e on a 60· melBr 

### when tested byASTM 

### M£tlwd D 523';[/9," 4. Make the Provisions and VOC limits in the plCll3llIe craft categories of the MMPPC CTG consiBtent with the requirements 

### ofll» planned revision to the Shipbuilding MACf Standard. 

### OAQPS**RECOMMENDAT~ON** After care.fu1 evaluation of the issues nised by tho pleasure craft industry, OAQPS is recommendiJIg that 

### the pleasure craft industry work with state agencies during their RACT rule development process to llSSOSil what is iea30nable for tho specific 80= regulated becaWl6 the CTG impose no legally binding requirements on eny entity, including pleasure aaft coatinS. :fiIcilities. CAA Section 172(c)(l) provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include "reaisonably avaiJablecootrol measures" (RACM), including RACf, for sources of emissinns. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nollllttainment are"", states must'revise their SIPs to include MCT for each C81egory af VOC sources covered by a cro document issued between November 15, 1990, 

### and the date or'ettainment. The CTG are intended, to provide state and local 

### Bir pollution control authorities with information to assist them in determining RACf for VQC.



### . Baspd on available information end data, EPA 

### ha9 provided recommendations far RACT for MMPPC operntiOl1B, .including p\easwe craft caBling operatians, in the MMPPC CfG. Stllles can \l88 the recommendations from thoMMPPC 

## eTG to inform their 

## own determination as to what constitutes RACT for 

## vac for p1easun: craft coating operations in their particular 02Qne no.nattainment areas, "
" 

## , ,



### o T • &1>59291>202 WdvO:2 OT02 VA unr4

·Regardless of whether a state chooses to implement the recommendations cotrtained in tlw MMPPC eTG through state 

### rules, or 

### to iSSUb state rule. that adopt different approaches, $1ales must submit their RAeT rule. to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA will evaluate the state's RACf rules 

## 8.nd determine, through notice and oomment nJlem.aking in the SIP approval prooess, whether the suhmltted rules meet the RACT 

### requ1rement9 of the eAA and EPA'. regulll1iO.lt3. Ifa 

### state propoaes 

### to adopt aoyofthe recommendations 

### ill the MMPPC eTG into its .tate RAeT ·rule., interested partiea can comment on and raise objections 

### about the 

### application of any specific RACT recommendation io the MMPPC CfG to a particular situstlon

. during 

### the developml2lt of the state rules and EPA's SIP approval process. Should you bs've further questions, please contact Kaye Whitfield of my 

### staff at 919-541- 2509 or wbitfield.kaye@epa.gov.**SvSB29to~OZ ~dvO:2**  OYOZ toO unr5
OAR-ID-OOO-7927 OAQPSlSPPDINR03:KWbitfie1dljrogers(xl4487):RTPIE 143- 03/042310lF:.JRoger08IKWhittieldi OARlOO007927MMPPC Response**St~** Page

- Kaye" 20MaylO,doc Coordinated with AQPD.

"

,1 

# I I I 

### ,

, 

# I

,

21

. cJ 61>SB291>202 l::l:Jdl-l**~dSO:2** 0102 1>0 unr

### ;;;0 

## m I ""T1 

### ::j 

# z m 

# :E rn C

### r

# o

£l"d WdSO:2 0,02**~O** unr

# • 

# -.e
••• 

# • AmericanCoatings

. ASSOCIATION 

# Co Se 

# I;) 

# f (J7t"J ;; 

# //WJ 

# 70 U) 

# h 

# f J

...



# l]ORIGINAL

1500 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.· WASHINGTON. DC 20005 • T 202A62.6272 • F 202.462.8549 • www.palnl.orQ**~~d~ WdIO:~** **OIO~** YO unr

# C 23

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

## PC #5 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

### ) REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM) GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL) PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS) TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, 218, AND 219) R 10-20 (Ru1emaking

- Air)

NOTICE OF FILING TO: Mr. John T. Therriault Assistant Clerk of the Board Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11·500 Chicago, minois 60601 (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) Timothy J

.. Fox, Esq. Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 

### (via U. S. Mail) (SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the illinois Pollution Control Board POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVffiONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP, on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 4, 2010

Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios HODGE DWYER & DRIVER 3150 Roland Avenue Post Office Box 5776 Springfield, lllinois 62705-5776 (217) 523-4900 By: 

### Is! Alec M. Davis Alec M Davis Alec M. Davis General Counsel ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATORY GROUP 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 6270 I (217) 522-5512

Tms FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010



### * * * * 

## * PC #5 

### * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211,218, 

## ANP 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) R10-20 (Rulemaking

- Air)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP ("IERG"), by and through its attorneys, Alec M. Davis, and HODGE DWYER & DRIVER, and hereby submits the following comments in the above described matter. I. INTRODUCTION IERG would like to thank the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") for the opportunity 

### to provide these comments, and thank the llIinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency") for its willingness to work with IERG and the individual members of the regulated commlUlity to ensure that the proposal reflects what is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. IERG supports the amendments contained in the Agency's May 17, 2010 Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Motion"), as they pertain to the issues raised by IERG at hearing, and would encourage the Board to grant the Agency's Motion prior to proceeding to Second Notice. Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal, In the Matter of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RA CT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer 

### & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 21l. 218. and 219, RlO-20

1

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #5 * * * * *
(Ill.PoI.ControI.Bd. May 17,2010). lERG would also recommend a change to the proposal, as would be amended by the Motion, as further described below. 

### II. USE OF FORMULATION DATA
.At hearing, !ERG inquired whether the Agency would be willing to consider allowing the

use of formulation data to calculate the YOM content of miscellaneous industrial adhesives, as

an alternative to requiring testing. Transcript, In the Malter of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RA CT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer 

### & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, RlO-20 at 16-17 (Ill.PoI.ControI.Bd. April 28, 2010) (hereafter cited as "Tr."). The recommended language amending Section 218.902(b)(1) and Section 219.902(b)(l) appears to be substantially identical
to the existing provisions contained in Section 218.1 05(a)(2), that allow the use offormulation data to determine the composition of coatings, inks, or fountain solutions. See Motion at 1-2 and
35 Ill. Admin. Code 

### § 218.902(b)(I). The option for the use of formulation data will provide subject sources with additional flexibility to demonstrate compliance, without compromising the integrity of the regulations. Accordingly, IERG supports the Agency's recommended amendments concerning the use of formulation data. 

### III. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING FOR EXEMPT UNITS
At hearing, !ERG initiated a series of questions to clarifY whether, or to what extent, the proposal imposed recordkeeping or reporting requirements on sources exempted from Subpart JJ

on the basis of their combined YOM emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations never equaling or exceeding 6.8 kg/day (15lbs/day). Tr. at 11-15. The Agency's Motion seeks to resolve tbe uncertainty by explicitly specifying the records required to



### 2

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010
* * * * * 

### PC #5 * * * * *

be kept by such exempted sources. Motion at 2-4. !ERG is generally satisfied with thc regulatory clarity provided by the Agency's amendment, but has some concern with the administrative burden imposed by requiring daily retention of records. The Agency's amendment would impose a daily recordkeeping obligation on exempted sources, in order to

ensure compliance with a requirement that is calculated on a calendar month basis. 

### See Proposed Sections 218.904(a)(I)(B) and 219.904(a)(1)(B). !ERG believes that the intent of the requirement could be satisfied with less onerous monthly recordkeeping, and therefore requests that the Board consider amending Sections 218.904(a) and 219.904(a) as follows: Section 218/219.904 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

### a)



## *** 2) Collect and record the following information each 6a;'-month for each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation, maintain the infonnation at the source for a period of three years, and provide the information to the Agency upon request: A) The name and identification number of each adhesive as applied by each misccllaneons industrial adhesive application operation; and B) The weight ofVOM per volume and the volume of each adhesive (minus water and any compounds which are specifically exempted from the definition ofVOM) as applied each 6a;'-month by each miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operation; I !ERG has discussed the issue with the Agency, and understands that the Agency is supportive of the Board adopting the above described changes.

I rhe proposed language reflects changes to the proposal as it would be amended, should the Board grant the Agency's Motion.


### 3

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #5 * * * * *

IV. CONCLUSION
IERG is appreciative of the opportunity to provide these comments in this matter. IERG would encourage the Board to adopt the amendments sought by the Agency in its Motion, as described above, and as modified to only require monthly recordkeeping of sources exempted from the proposed Subpart JJ on the basis of their emissions not exceeding the specified threshold. IERG would also like to thank the Agency for its outreach 

### in the proposal's development, and its willingness to continue to work with the regulated community. Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATORY GROUP
Dated: June 4,2010

Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios 

### HODGE DWYER & 

### DRIVER 3150 Roland Avenue Post Office Box 5776 Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 (217) 523-4900 By: 

### lsi Alec M. Davis AlecMDavis Alec M. Davis General Counsel ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATORY GROUP 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 (217) 522-5512

IERG:OOIIR DocketIRlO-201lERG Post Hearing Connnents



### 4

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *

CERTIFICATE 

### OF SERVICE I, Alec M. Davis, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the attached
POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP upon: Mr. John T. Therriault Assistant Clerk of the Board Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 via electronic mail on June 4, 20 I 0; and upon: Virginia 

### 1. Yang, Esq. Ill. Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271

Dana E. Vetterhoffer, Esq. Il1. Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East Post Office Box 19276 Springfield, lllinois 62794-9276 Heidi E. Hanson, Esq. Podlewski & Hanson, P.C. 4721 Franklin Avenue Suite 1500 Western Springs, Illinois 60558-1720 Matthew J. Dunn, Esq. Chief, Environmental Bureau North Office of thc Attorney General 69 West Washington Street Suite 1800 Chicago, lllinois 60602 Timothy J. Fox, Esq. Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601
James Sell, Esq. Senior Counsel American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield, Illinois on June 4, 2010.



### lsi Alec M. Davis Alec M. Davis IERG:0011R DoclcetlR10-201NOF-COS

- !ERG Post Hearing Comments

# C 24

### Electronic Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #6 * * * * * 

# ELEO'ROI'AOTIVE,. 9301 West 55" Street laGrange. IL 60525 USA


### 4 June 2010 Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph Street Suite 11-500 James R 

### Thompson Center Chicago, 

### IL 60601
Re: Comment on Rulemaking 10-20: Proposed Amendments to 35l11. Adm. Code 211, 218, & 

### 209 DearSir or Madam: Electro·Motive Diesel (EMD) located in Cocik County would Ii)<e to take this opportunity to provide a comment regarding proposed amendments to 35 lIl. 

### 211,218, & 

### 219 as put forth in Rulemaking 10-20.
We note that the existing 35 lAC 218.2040) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating includes a general category under (j)(1) for "Clear coating". After May 11, 2011, coating lines subject to this regulation will need to comply with 35 lAC 218.204(q). Yet, the only "Clear coating" category in (q) of the proposed amendments is at (q)(I)(AA) "Marine engine coating". The exclusion of a "Clear coating" category in (q) will greatly affect future paint coating needs at our facility in McCook, Illinois.
EMD suggests to the Board that a category labeled "Clear coating" be added to 35 lAC 218.204(q)(1)(A) "General one component coatings" to be consistent with the existing 35 lAC 218.204(j)(1). EMD proposes the following language under section 351AC 218.204(q)(1)(A): Add the following CategOly: A) General one component coatings

Clear coating: 

## Wl (lb/gal) coatings 

## Wl (Ib/gal) solids 1.24 (10.34)

### Electronic 

### Filing

- Received, Clerk's Office, June 4, 2010

* * * * * 

### PC #6 * * * * * Elcctro·Mmive**Diesel~** Inc, 9301 West 55'" Street LaGrange, IL 60525 USA 

### If 

### this addition to the "General one component coating" category is not possible, EMD requests that the Board consider adding a "Clear coating" category to 35 lAC 218.204(q)(1) as foJlows: CC) Diesel-Electric Locomotive Coating Lines in Cook County 

## Wl Wl (lb/gal) lIb/gal) coatings solids Clear coating: 1.24 110.34) If IPCB requires any additional information regarding this suggestion, please contact me at 708c387-5904 or lay Shaffer at 708-387-6690. Sincerely,

cc: Mr. Jay Shaffer, Electro-Motive Diesel