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 the 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 material (VOM) emissions in areas designated as 

nonattainment with respect to the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (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 Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

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 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 existing 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 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 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 Miscellaneous 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; National 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 emergency rulemaking currently in effect? No 

8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date? No 

9) Does this rulemaking contain 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 Section 3(b) of the State Mandates Act. [30 ILCS 

805/3(b)]. 

12) Time, Place, and Manner in which interested persons may comment on this proposed 

rulemaking: Interested persons may request copies of the Board's opinion and order by 

calling the Clerk's office at 312/814-3620 or may 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 according 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 information 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 municipalities and not for profit corporations 

affected: This rulemaking will impact any small business, small municipality, 

and not for profit corporation that falls within one of the Group IV Product 

Categories and meets the applicability thresholds specified in the proposal. 

B) Reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance: The 

proposed rulemaking requires that the owner or operator of a subject source 

perform emissions monitoring, submit certifications, 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 existing 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 the Subjects and Issues Involved: The Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) proposed this rulemaking to satisfy Illinois' obligation 

to submit a State Implementation Plan addressing 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. The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for the following Group 

IV Consumer and Commercial Product Categories: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial 
 ILLINOIS REGISTER 4336

 10 

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Adhesives, and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 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 limitations 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 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 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 Miscellaneous 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; National 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 emergency rulemaking currently in effect? No 

8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date? No 

9) Does this rulemaking contain incorporations by reference? Yes 

10) Are there any other rulemakings 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 interested persons may comment on this proposed 

rulemaking: Interested persons may request copies of the Board's opinion and order by 

calling the Clerk's office at 312-814-3620 or may 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 according 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 information 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 municipalities and not for profit corporations 

affected: This rulemaking will impact any small business, small municipality, 

and not for profit corporation that falls within one of the Group IV Product 

Categories and meets the applicability thresholds specified in the proposal. 

B) Reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance: The 

proposed rulemaking requires that the owner or operator of a subject source 

perform emissions monitoring, submit certifications, 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 existing 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 the Subjects and Issues Involved: The Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) proposed this rulemaking to satisfy Illinois' obligation 

to submit a State Implementation Plan addressing 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. The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for the following Group 

IV Consumer and Commercial Product Categories: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial 
 ILLINOIS REGISTER 4476

 10 

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Adhesives, and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 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. Generally, the proposal amends Subpart F of Part 

219 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 219, which set forth new VOM limitations 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 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 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 Miscellaneous 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; National 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 emergency rulemaking currently in effect? No 

8) Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date? No 

9) Does this rulemaking contain 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 interested persons may comment on this proposed 

rulemaking: Interested persons may request copies of the Board’s opinion and order by 

calling the Clerk's office at 312/814-3620 or may 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 according 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 information 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 municipalities and not for profit corporations 

affected: This rulemaking will impact any small business, small municipality, and 

not for profit corporation that falls within one of the Group IV Product Categories 

and meets the applicability thresholds specified in the proposal. 

B) Reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance: The 

proposed rulemaking requires that the owner or operator of a subject source 

perform emissions monitoring, submit certifications, 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 existing 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 6
CO-eHA1R:

SEN. MAGGIE CROTTY

CQ-CHAIA:

REP. ANGELO ·SKIP· SAVIANO

EXECUTIVE D1RECWR:

VICKI THOMAS

JOINT COMMITTEE ONADMINISTIUTIVE 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

DORIGINAL 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) ofthe 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 ofthe 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 Therriault
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

VfCKI THOMAS

JOINT COMMITTEE ONADMINISTRATIVE 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) ofthe 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 ifthey 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 ofJCAR as part ofthe staffs review ofthis 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 ofCommerce 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, 1must

respectfully decline your request.

Sinyrelx;

fA..../~ - Warren Ribley '------

Director

I1linois Department ofCommerce 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 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, -

copies ofwhich are herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:Cl'\a: I/y2.. tJtt~1 Dana Vetlerhoffer

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal 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. 1am an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air Quality Planning

Section, Air Pollution Control Division ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's

("IIIinois EPA" or "Agency") Bureau ofAir. 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 ofTransportation 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 ofIllinois 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 ofthe 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 ofthe technical feasibility and economic

impact ofthe 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 USEPA for the

CTG for this source category indicates that there are compliant products or feasible control

options for compliance for each ofthe 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 ofAutomobile Manufacturers in 2008 as part ofthe 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 ofproducts.

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 ofthe

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 offiberglass 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 ofYOM 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 ofthe 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 ofAmendments 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 ofAmendments 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 ofthe drafting ofthe rule the Illinois EPA has relied upon the analysis ofthe

USEPA to determine whether the limits in the CTGs and the proposed amendments are

technically feasible. Upon rcview ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofemissions in these source categories due to existing

regulation such as a NESHAP.

Summary of Testimony

It is the position ofthe 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 ofthe 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 AVAlLABLE 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 ATTACHED SERVICE LlST.

ILLINOIS E},'VIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

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

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 ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, 1L 62702-1271

virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division ofEnvironmental 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 6270I

adavis@ierg.org

Heidi E. Hanson

Podlewski & Hanson, P.c.

4721 Franklin Ave.

Suite 1500

Western Springs, 1L 60558-1720

heh70@hotmail.com
C 9
1

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) 277-0190
2

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 ofthe Pollution Control

Board the REoUEST FOR HEARING ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, copies

ofwhich 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 MATIER 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

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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:emha. r!dzbdf#;ju Dana Vetterhoffer

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal 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 AVAlLABLE 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 ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division ofEnvironmental 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 11
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN TIfE MATIER 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 ofe-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 12
Respectfully submitted in connection w

t

p

p

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

recornmendatiorsto 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 ReW
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, thepleasure craft industry responded in the extended Iwo-year period to ‘extract itselffrom 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 forconsideration as RACT by ozone non-attainment states and areas:

For more details see http://www.arb.ca .govlbactldocslssrcahfornia.htm 2 For more information use the following link httoJfwww.aQmd.ov/hb/1999/99012a.htmI

2

689fr2O li3dlJ WH8t.:8 OtO LOBW
pleasure craft rules such as Rule 1106.1 into Air Quality Districts like the South Coast has

been a pivotal factor to these builders either moving out of these areas into other parts of

the US, or to other countries.

At one time, 75% of Catalina Yachts production came out of the California plant based in

South Coast district, but this has now been transferred to a newer site based In Florida

(where there are currently no pleasure craft coating VOC restrictions). Ericson Yachts

has undergone reorganization and now operates as Pacific Seacraft In North Carolina.Corsair Marine, which at one time operated out of San Diego, has now moved production

to a plant in Vietnam. The yacht construction business has largely died out or relocatedto neighbouring districts or states which have no pleasure craft VOC rules.

The pleasure craft surface coating industry is a mobile one, and pleasure craft (especially

the larger ones) can dock anywhere in the US or even around the world. According to the

2002 Census (US Census Bureau: NAICS codes 336612 and 336611), the Boat Building

and Repair industry in the US had a revenue of $20 billion and employed approximately

140,000 pele. Since 2002 the industry has been in general decline — losing share and

status to non-US suppliers. There is a very real concern that California’s experience will

be repeated.elsewhere if the wider adoption of Rule 1106.1 goes ahead. This would be

disastrous fcr the general economy.

2. The pleasure craft coatings industry has been given insufficient time to produce compliant

coatings whkh meet the performance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure craftowners and meet the pleasure craft coating limits of Rule 1106.1 before ozone noncompliant states adopt the rule Into State Implementation Plans (SIP). Because of the

likely lack of compliant products, it is conceivable that other states forced to implement

Rule 1106.1 will find themselves in a similar position to that of South Coast with a

declining pleasure craft coating business contributing to dwindling economy and

increased unemployment.

3. South Coast AQMD has serious ozone problems and has been allocated the ozone

classification of ‘Severe-I 7’ by the EPA. In order to reduce the extent of its ozone

problem, South Coast AQMD has implemented a series of VOC rules (including Rule

1106.1) which are the most restrictive in the world. Table I contains different ozone

‘design values’ for the ozone non-attainment areas In a state in which pleasure craft

coating business is currently thriving (Florida) and from San BernardLno in South Coast

AQMD in C!ifomnia. The values are taken from a sample from the EPA’s document titled

‘Design Vali. as by County for 2008 Ozone Standard’ 3.The table shows that the ozone

problem in South Coast is significantly worse, between 46— 57% higher, than in Florida.

Table 1- Ozone Design Values for 2008 ozone standard taken from monitored air quality data

between the years of 2004 and 2006

Fohow this link far full table

http:Ilwww.eop,pov/pirlpzoneppllutionlodfsl2008 03 deslrin values 2004 2006.adf

3

GB9D HDdW WH8t,:8 OIO LO Rew
v

0.077 57% lesS

Florida Escambla 0.083 46% less

Florida Hillsborough 0.080 51% less

4. Even in the State of California, only five other Districts have found the need to introduce

rules which negulate the VOC content of pleasure craft coatings, as follow:

Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1106-1

Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1106

Ventura County APCD Rule 74-24-1

San Diego APCD Rule 67.18

Bay Area AQMD Rule 8-43

Some of these rules have exclusion statements to prevent applicability to small boat

ownersl usrs, i.e. the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) market.

Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1106 provides an exemption for facilities whose rate per day

of coating u e is less than one gallon, including any VOC-containirig materials added to

the original coating as supplied by the manufacturer.

Bay Area AQMD Rule 8-43 provides an exclusion for coating of pleasure craft orcommercial fishing vessels using coatings purchased in containers of one gallon or less.

San Diego County APCD Rule 67.18 provides an exemption for non-commercial marine

coating operations performed by individuals at their personal residence for the purpose of

coating their own pleasure craft(s).

Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non-attainment in South Coast

AQMD in California by significantly restricting the VOC levels of pleasure craft coatings

and is not necessary for adoption in non-attainment areas which EPA classifies as‘Moderate’ like those in Florida: that is, the majority of non-attainment areas nationwide.Therefore we consider that adopting Rule 1106.1 as a national RACT recommendation is

excessive, as it was developed to address situations where non-attainment areas aredefined as ‘Severe’.

5. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 itself requires an additional speciality category to allow for recent

regulatory developments resulting from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

Aritifouling Systems Convention (2001). Further information on this can be found in the

‘Industry Prc posal’ section of this document.

Current SituationThe industry cottinues to work to develop tower VOC coatings for the US pleasure craft

market. However, high solids and water based technologies have not been immediately

successful in providing compliant coatings which also meet technical and customer demands.

Coating manufacturers will not have complete portfolios of compliant products to meet the

4

GB9t’D HDdW WHBt’B oro to Rew
2008 stistios show ten US yards signing up for over one mile of superyacht huIJ (1903 yards) worth of new orders, with an average hull value estimated at one million

dollars per cubic meter.

• US builders share of the global superyacht market was 15% in 2008, compared to

17.8% In 2007, and 19.4°Jo in 2006

• Superyacht deliveries in 2007 were 23 from the US, compared to 121 from Europe

Of equal importa-ce is the refit/repair market sector in the US. The growth rate of the repair

market (as seen over the last 10 years) has been essential to the North American pleasurecraft industry. Some regions and states rely heavily on the income that the pleasure craftindustry provides. Laws, regulations, and!or boatyard practices that potentially limit the

competitive edge could seriously in,pact the regional and even national economy by deterring

foreign and domestic clientele. If boats can not be completed to the aesthetic standards

demanded in North America (due to limitations on products and/or applications), it is highly

likely that business in this sector, including charter business, will be lost to South America,

Mexico and Europe. This risk is also present when making decisions that will narrow the

choice and abilit to effectively paint and supply pleasure craft related projects.

Florida is a good example of how important economically the pleasure craft sectors are. TheFlorida market relies on competitive rates, access to skilled labor resources, and the ability to

service both dorrestic and foreign vessels. The Broward-Dade-Palrn Beach “Tn-County

Region’ has remained at The forefront otsuperyacht service and repair sector, where industry

growth has doub ed in the last ten years. The direct economic impact of superyacht repairand maintenance projects at local boat yards in the Tn-County Region was estimated to be

$219.8 million drIng 2006.

Between 1997 and 2007, the financial contrIbution of the superyacht refit sector in Florida can

be summarized as follows 4;

• 48% of routine maintenance projects in Tn-County boatyards were from non-U.S.-

based vessels during 2006 alone. Over half of major overhaul projects were

completed on foreign yachts at Tn-County boatyards.

• Each of the 1400 superyachts serviced by Tn-County boatyards in 2006 supported

five full-time personnel per vessel at area boatyards and related industries,

supportimg an estimated 7300 jobs.

• An estimated $204 million in superyacht charter fees were paid via Tn-County charter

firms whidh received commissions of approximately $30.6 million in 2006: twice that

of 1997.

• One 164-foot charter vessel will have direct impact on a region with expenditures of

approxiriiately $2.6 million. The direct impact, if occurring in the Tn-County region,would result in a total economic impact of $5.1 million from a charter superyacht’s

operation.

Source: Growth, current activity and Economic Impacts ci’ Mega Yachts in South Florida 1997 —2007.

T.J Murray & AssoDiates, prepared on behalf of Marine Industries Associaliori of South Florida and the

Broward Alliance

5

6B9t,O HDdF.J WU6t’R OLo to RW
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 VOCemission 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 requirementsare 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-limitapproach, 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 w
y 

p

p

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 Rew
industry also requires EPA to implement the following permanent changes to the categories

and levels taken from Rule 1106.1 for use in Ilie CTG with immediate effect.

Additional Speciality Categoiy and VOC Limit: Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat

Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to

reflect pleasure craft coatings of the modern day which are more environmentally friendly

aridlor compliant with International law.

A new category is requIred as a result of the IMO Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS)

and should be acded to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. The category should be

named Antifouluig sealerrrle Coat’ with a maximum VOC content of 420 giL. Antifóuling

Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced into the market largely to facilitate

compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO-Antifouling Systems Convention (2001 )6 This coating

type is required to promote adhesion of hiocide-free, non-stick foul release coatings when

applied to vessels. The use of blocide-free coatings brings significant environmental

benefits.

Antifouling Seale-)Tie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 gIL in order to facilitate adequate

penetration Into .n underlying paint film for maximum adhesion. They also contain a highdegree of polymeric material (hence need a higher VOC content to maintain an acceptable

application viscosity) so the coating can form a flexible yet complete barrier over anunderlying paint urn. An appropriate definition for this type of coating would be...

“a coating applied overBiocidal antifoullng coating for the purpose ofpro venting release of

biocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion between an antifoullng and a

primer or other antifoulings.”Revised VOC Limit forAntifouling CategorySignificant time a’d effort have been invested by industry to develop low VOC antifouling

coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. It is possible to reduce the VOC content of antifouling coatings to a certain level, after which product performance becomes significantly V

compromised i.e. the coating begins to foul after a much shorter time as the performance Vlifetime of the prcductis reduced. If this happens the antifouling must be reapplied morefrequently resulting in a greater overall VOC contribution. This nullifies the merit of producing

the lower VOC antifouling in the first instance,The current Federal HAP level for Antifoulings in the US is 400g/L 7as is the CTG 8which

covers the same sector. South Coast AQMD Rule 1106 which applies to Marine coating

V operations also contains a VOC limit for antifouling coatings of 400g/L. This limit is more

V suitable to represent RACT for this coating category and we suggest the following VOC limit

amendment;

a For compliance vith the IMO.AFS Convention, boats previously coated with a non-compliantantifouling are able to comply if they overcoat with a sealer coat prior to application of a compliant

coating.

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface

Coating) Operatiore e Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating)

8 V

S.d 88SO lJDdW wHI:o OTO tO W
controlled application conditions which make the use.of these coatings possible in those

industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft coating industry.

Additionally, sorie low VOC topcoats, originating from the car refinish market and now being

marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a polymer type which provides reduced

durability. These coatings have a reduced lifetime and their use will necessitate a more

frequent recoatirig schedule which means In relative terms, more VOC Is emitted.

The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to the topsides of pleasure craft are of primary

importance to boat owners. This should not be underestimated or dismissed. If boat owners

cannot achieve the desired super-glossy, mirror-like finish, they will not settle for an inferiorsolution — they will simply have their boats painted elsewhere. These coatings areprofessionally applied so any restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of

ihdividuai yards will have a direct and immediate bearing on employment levels and staterevenues.

In a typical extreme gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents less than 40% of the

overall VOC burien and less than 10% of total yacht coatings on an annualised basis. Rule

1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non-attainment in South Coast AQMD in

California. It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption for the majority of non-attainment

areas where the problem is ‘Moderate’ according to the EPA. The Industry feels that

restricting the VOC of the other coating categories and setting the VOC limitfor Extreme High

Gloss topcoats to 600 gIL, provides individual states with a balanced VOC reduction strategy

that is appropriate to the challenge and that does not seriously impact the competitiveness of

the industry in the state.

Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat

As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken in a variety of environmental

conditions which can have an affect on the final gloss level of the product at the point of

application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in thedefinition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read...

“Extreme high g.oss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent

reflectance on a 600 meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523-89”

4. EPA’s development of Pleasure Craft MACT Standard

The industry is also aware that separate EPA staff are currently determining a Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard to control Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)emissions from pleasure craft coating operations in the US. Pleasure craft coating

manufacturers have submitted a substantial amount of information to help the EPA develop arule which meets the requirements of all parties concerned. The industry is keen to ensure

that the recommandations the EPA make for pleasure craft coating operations in the

Miscellaneous IV etal and Plastic Parts C1’G are consistent with what is planned for thePleasure Craft IV ACT standard (proposal due out early next year).

Summary

The pleasure craft industry was not given the normal opportunity to consult with theEPA sufficiently during the drafting of the CTG. It therefore feels that it is imperative that even

atthis stagethe changes to the provisions of Rule 1106.1 in the CTG put forward in thisdocument are fu[y considered in order to safeguard an industry that is critical to the US

9

6’d 689t’O HDdW WHTS:8 OED to REW
pp

p

p

If this is riot deemed possible then points 2 and 3 should apply.

2. Amend the CTG “Finish Primer/Surfacer’ VOC limit from 420 to GOOgiL for a 4 year

interim period to allow coating manufacturers and users sufficient time to develop

and implement compliant coatings.

3. Make changes that are required to the Rule 1106.1 provisions of the CTG with

immediafe and permanent effect as follows,

Add an additional speciality category of “Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat” with

VOC limit of 420giL to align the CTG with the lMOAS;

• Amend “Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating” VOC limit from 330gIL to 400glL;

a Amend the “Extreme High Gloss” VOC limit from 420 g/L to 600 gIL,

reflecting the very specialised nature of the coatings in this category;

• Revise the coating category definition of “Extreme High Gloss Topcoat” to

read: “Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves

‘reaterthan 90 percent reflectance on a 6O meter when tested by ASTM

Method D 523-89”

In addition, the pleasure craft industry has already worked with EPA staff to provide

information to support the development of a Pleasure Craft MACT Standard. Thus we

request:

4. Provisions of the pleasure craft categories and VOC limits ofthe CTG must be

consistent with the development of requirements in the planned Pleasure Craft MACTStandard.

NPCA, withthe haip of the pleasure craft coatings industry, would like to work with the EPA

on this issue arid we would welcome an opportunity to discuss this proposal in more detailduring a face to face meeting at the EPA offices.Respectfully submitted in connection with Illinois Proposal to adopt the Pleasure Craft CTG,

By James SellSenior Counsel - American Coatings Association

jselkoaint.oro

202-462-6272 ext 252

10

OLd 689O HDdW wus:8 OTO tO Feu
C 13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, May 7, 2010

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL IlOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATfLE

ORGAN IC MA TERIA L ElI,aSSIONS FROM

GROUP IV CONSUMER & COMi'vIERCIAL

PRODUCTS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35 lLL. A0,"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 ATrACHED SERVICE LIST

)

)

)

)

)

)

R2010-20

(Rnlemaking-Air)

Please lake notice Ihn! I have today med electrollicnlly wilh Ihe Oflice 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 nhard copy will be sent to you.

Respectfnlly Snbmitted,

OLIN CORPORATION

Dnled: May 7, 20 IO.

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 MATfER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE

ORGANIC MATERlAL 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, Shellcases, 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 ofChanges 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. Ifthe 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 ofthe 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, USEPA 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 IEPA 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 ofits sealants to meet

the current 35lll. Adm. Code § 219.204(j) limits. A similar, if not greater effort, would be

. required ifsealant 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-VOM) 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 ofmouth

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 ofthe 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, iffeasible 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. Ifthis 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 (FORAMMUNITION 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 dye17 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·-,::..:,::-:.-,"'C4-;-: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 ofMay 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 ofEnvironmental

Enforcement

Office ofthe Attorney General

69 West Washington Street, Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60602

mdunn@atg.state.il.us

Dana Vetterboffer

Assistant Counsel

Division ofLegal 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 AVAILABLE 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 ofthe Pollution Control

Board th~ POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL ofthe

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 ofLegal 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 ofthe 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 ofParts 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 ofthe analyses employed by USEPA in arriving at these particular efficiency

requirements. The Illinois EPA has requested the infonnation from USEPA, 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 ofthe 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 oftwo 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 "Bedliner" 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 "bedliner" 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

ofin 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 ofLegal 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 ofthis rulemaking proposal.

In support ofits 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 offonnulation data as an option for calculating

YOM content ofmiscellaneous industrial adhesives. (Transcript at 16.23). The Agency

recommends inclusion ofthis option as follows:

Section 218.902

a)

Testing Requirements

b) Testing to demonstrate compliance with the VOM content limitations in Section

218.90I(b) ofthis 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 ofthis Part, shall

be used for non-reactive adhesives. Ifit is demonstrated to the satisfaction

ofthe 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. Ifit is demonstrated to the satisfaction

ofthe Agency and the USEPA 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 ofthe criteria in Section 218.900(a) ofthis Subpart shall comply with the

following:

I) By May I, 2011, or upon initial start-up ofthe 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 ofYOM

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 ofYOM 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

ofYOM 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 ofsuch 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 ofthis Subpart

because ofthe criteria in Section 219.900(a) ofthis Subpart shall comply with the

following;

I) By May I, 2011, or upon initial start-up ofthe 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 ofYOM

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 ofthree 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 ofsuch 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 ofthe Section consistent with the definition:

Section 211.200 Acrylonitrile-Butadienc-Styrene (ABS) Welding

"Acrylonitrile;-butadiene;-styrene (ABS) welding" means, for purposes ofSubpart JJ ofParts

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 ofthis 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 ofPleasure 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 ofOlin, 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 ofthe 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 shellcase.

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 ofbonding the weatherstrip

material to the surface ofthe 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 ofprimers.

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 ofthe 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 ofmediumlhigh voltage switchgear, of greater than 1,000

volts AC, for utility distribution in outdoor use.

Section 211. I8716 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 MATIER 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)

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 ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement

Office ofthe 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

heh70@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 12010

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) 419-9292
Page 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 MATIER 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)

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 Awlgrip is one of universal trust and respect. This reputation

has been built upon consistent technical irmovation, stringent quality controls and the

superlative finish ofAwl grip products, which have long represented the standard against

which all others are measured.

After graduating from the University ofNorth Carolina in 1972, 1joined 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 ofMr. James Sell, Senior Counsel ofthe 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 ofPleasure 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 ofthe EPA CTG , Case ~l.l. 3 ~IO - 2.0

~r

5 -l't - ,0
Number 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 ofCalifornia 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 ofCalifomia, 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 for
revised 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 oflow-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 oftheir products/investments. A period offour 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 include
revised 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 toassist in this process, and the industry supports

rulernaking that will provide a consistent approach to reduce emissions ofboth 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 ofthe EPA

CTG, EPA has held a number ofinternal 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 ofthe 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 ofan 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 ofthe

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 ofseveral basecoats and topcoats. The different

formulations require different combinations ofsolvents. 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 ifthe 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 ofthat hearing (Tr.2)

on Friday, May 21,2010.

Section 28.5(f)(3) ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ifthe 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 ofdays." Tr.2 at 69. Counsel for

the Agency agreed that, ifit did not pre-file testimony for a third hearing by the deadline ofMay,

21, 2010, 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) ofthe Act provides that, "[f]ollowing the hearings, the Board must close

the record 14 days after the availability ofthe transcript." P.A. 96-0308 (Section 28.5(k)). With

the cancellation ofthe third hearing, the hearings in this proceeding concluded on Wednesday,

May 19, 2010. On Friday, May 21, 2010, the Board received the transcript ofthe 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 101.3OO(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 ofbusiness 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 6060I

(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)

Timothy J. Fox

Hearing Officer

llIinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite II-500

Chicago, lllinois 6060I

(VIA U.S. MAIL)

(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe 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 PAPER
R 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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: ProposedAmendments 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 ofthe 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 ofNatural 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 ofthe 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

I00 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 lvIATERIAL 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 ofwhich is herewith served electronica/ly upon you. ]fyou

would like a hard copy ofsuch 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 MATIER 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, ifEjection 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 sealantmeans, 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

environmentalbenefIt. 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 ofthis 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.

ChiefEngineer, 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 VOLATILE

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 ofJune 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 MATIER 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 ofthe 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 ofLegal 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 MAITER 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)

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 IO. Subsequently, several

interested parties approached the Agency with concerns regarding specific porlions ofthe

proposal, or identified issues at the hearings that took place on April 28, 2010, and May 19,

20 IO. 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 ofthe 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 ofCompliance 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 ofthree 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 ofRobert Ravrnond

At hearing, Robert Raymond offered testimony on behalf ofRayvac 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 ofreach." 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 ofRobert 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) ofSection 2181219.204 sets forth limitations for

automotive/transportation plastic paits and products. All ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.J4). 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") prefiled testimony on May 7, 2010. In its testimony, Olin

expressed concerns regarding the impact ofthe 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 ofParts 218 and 219. (Post-Hearing Comments No.4).

At hearing, however, Mr. Sutton, a representative ofOlin, 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 ofammunition, 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 Sealant

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 ofprimers.

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 ofthis

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 ofPleasure 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 ofSouth 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 ("USEPA") 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 ofpleasure 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 ofthe 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 ofa coating line subject to Section 218.204 ofthis

Subpart, except coating lines subject to Section 218.204(q)(6), may comply with

this Section, rather than with Section 218.204 ofthis 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 ofthis Part and the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in Section 218.211 (e) ofthis

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) ofthis 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) ofthis Section may be used as an alternative to

compliance with Section 218.204 ofthis Subpart only ifthe 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 ofthis Subpart may also comply with subsection

fm) ofthis Section, rather than with Section 218.204 ofthis 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 ofSection 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 LIMjVj

i=A

Where:

--!- L1M=

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

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 ofspecified 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 ofthe 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=

-'-1- V=

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 ofspecified 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 ofSection

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 ofthis 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 ofsuch 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 ofthis Subpart to Section

218.205 or Section 218.207 ofthis Subpart, the owner or operator

shall comply with all requirements ofsubsection (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 ofsubsection (d), el'-(e). or Ih) ofthis Section, !!§

applicablerespestively.

d) Any owner or operator of a coating line subject to the limitations ofSection

218.204 ofthis SUbpart and complying by means of Section 218.205 ofthis

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 ofsuch 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 218.205 ofthis Subpart

to Section 218.204 or Section 218.207 ofthis Subpart, the owner

or operator shall comply with all requirements ofsubsection (c)(I),

el'-(e)(I), or Ih)(l) ofthis 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 ofsubsection

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) ofthis Subpart and

complying by means ofSection 2l8.207(m) ofthis Subpart shall comply with the

following:

I) By a date consistent with Section 218.106 ofthis Part, or upon initial startup of a new pleasure craft surface coating operation, whichever is later, or

upon changing the method ofcompliance for an existing subject coating

operation from Section 218.204, 218.205. or 218.207(1) ofthis Subpart to

Section 218.207(m) ofthis Subpart, the owner or operator of a subject

coating operation shaH perfom all tests and calculations, and submit to the

Agency the results ofsuch 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 ofthe 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

ofSection 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 J8.205, 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 ofthree 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 ofthis Part and the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in Section 219.21 I(e) ofthis

Subpart; and the control device is equipped with the applicable monitoring

equipment specified in Section 219.1 05(d) ofthis 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) ofthis Section may be used as an alternative to

compliance with Section 219.204 of this Subpart only ifthe alternative is

approved by the Agency and approved by the USEPA as a SlP revision. The

owner or operator ofa pleasure craft surface coating operation subject to Section

219.204(g)(5)(A) through.(G) ofthis Subpart may also comply with subsection (I)

ofthis Section, rather than with Section 219.204 ofthis 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 jVj

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 ofspecified 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 ofthe first 12-month averaging period, and at the end of each

subsequent month, the owner or operator ofa 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 ofspecified 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 ofa 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 VOMj lj YOM! = ~n V

L.j=l J

15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 4,2010

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

Where:

--1- VOM=

--,---",=- VOM·=

-J- V·=

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 ofSection

219.204 ofthis Subpart other than Section 219.204(a)(l)(B), (a)(I)(C), (a)(2)(B),

(a)(2)(C), or (a)(2)(D) ofthis 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 ofthis Part, the owner

or operator ofa subject coating line shall notify the Agency in the

following instances:

A) Any record showing violation ofSection 219.204 ofthis Subpart

shall be reported by sending a copy ofsuch record to the Agency

within 30 days following the occurrence ofthe 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 ofsubsection (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 ofsubsection (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 ofthis Subpart and complying by means of Section 219.205 ofthis

Subpart shaH comply with the foHowing:

3) On and after a date consistent with Section 219.1 06 ofthis 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 ofthis Subpart

shall be reported by sending a copy ofsuch record to the Agency

within 30 days following the occurrence ofthe 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 ofthis Subpart, the owner or operator

shall comply with all requirements ofsubsection (c)(1), er(e)(I),

or (h)(l) ofthis Section, as applicableresjleelively. Upon changing

the method of compliance with this Subpart from Section 219.205

to Section 219.204 or Section 219.207 ofthis Subpart, the owner

or operator shall comply with all requirements ofsubsection (c), er

(e), or (h) ofthis 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 ofthis Subpart and

complying by means of Section 219.207(1) ofthis Subpart shall comply with the

following:

I) By a date consistent with Section 219.106 ofthis 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) ofthis Subpart to

Section 219.207(1) ofthis 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 ofsuch tests and calculations, necessary to demonstrate

that the subject coating line will be in compliance with Section 2I9.207(1)

on and after a date consistent with Section 219.106 ofthis Part, or on and

after the initial start-up date,

2) On and after a date consistent with Section 219, I06 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 ofthe 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 I9.207(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 ofthree years from the date the document was

created, and provide such records to the Agency upon request.

As outlined above, instead ofrequiring 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 ofParts 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 prefiled 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 ofreducing 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 USEPA 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 ofsuch 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 nonattainment 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 ofthe 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 ofthe "additional technology information," the lIJinois EPA is unable to comment on the

substance ofthe recommendations.

The I1linois EPA would like to note, however, that it had no involvement in the USEPA's

inclusion ofthe 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 USEPA 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 ofLegal 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 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)

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 ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, II.. 62702-1271

virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement

Office ofthe 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

heh70@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 unr
As 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 ofthe 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 J7.2(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 emto 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 oflhe 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

ofpleasure creft coatings, Into the SIP's ofozone 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

Ifthis is nof deemed possible than points 2 and 3 shopld apply.

2

6ioS9C!9toC!OC! ~dlO:C! OIOC! toO unr
Amend 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 Caeling" 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 byASTM 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 ofthe eTG must be

consistant with the development ofrequirements 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 unc
Hence 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 leastfor 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 unr
In 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 unr
UNrrED 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 ofAir Quality P

TO: Chief, Air Branch

RegioM I-X

The purpose ofthis memomndum is to infonn EPA Regional Offices that member! ofthe

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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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

ofthe 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 ofthe 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 unC
2

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 oflUlIS9 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 Eurfacer 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.aftsur: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 WMIl Primers

Finish PrimulSurfarer .

Hiltb BuiId 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 oftlu: 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 byASTMM£tlwd D 523';[/9,"

4. Make the Provisions and VOC limits in the plCll3llIe craft categories ofthe MMPPC CTG

consiBtent with the requirements ofll» planned revision to the Shipbuilding MACf Standard.

OAQPS RECOMMENDAT~ON

After care.fu1 evaluation ofthe 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 ofemissinns.

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 unr
4

·Regardless ofwhether 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 RAeTrule. to EPA for review and approval as part ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe state rules and EPA's SIP approval process.

Should you bs've further questions, please contact Kaye Whitfield ofmy staff at 919-541-

2509 or wbitfield.kaye@epa.gov.

SvSB29to~OZ ~dvO:2 OYOZ toO unr
5

OAR-ID-OOO-7927

OAQPSlSPPDINR03:KWbitfie1dljrogers(xl4487):RTPIE143-

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

mI

""T1

::j

z

m

:E

rn

C

ro

£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 ofthe 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 ofthe Clerk of

the illinois Pollution Control Board POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE

ILLINOIS ENVffiONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP, on behalf ofthe Illinois

Environmental Regulatory Group, a copy ofwhich 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 ofthe 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 (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissionsfrom Group IVConsumer &

Commercial Products: ProposedAmendments 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 offormulation data to calculate the YOM content ofmiscellaneous industrial adhesives, as

an alternative to requiring testing. Transcript, In the Malter of Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT)for Volatile Organic Material Emissionsfrom 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 offormulation data will provide subject sources with additional

flexibility to demonstrate compliance, without compromising the integrity ofthe 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 ofquestions to clarifY whether, or to what extent, the

proposal imposed recordkeeping or reporting requirements on sources exempted from Subpart JJ

on the basis oftheir 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 ofrecords. 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 ofthree 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 ofthe 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 ofsources exempted

from the proposed Subpart JJ on the basis oftheir 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 ofthe Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

via electronic mail on June 4, 20I0; and upon:

Virginia 1. Yang, Esq.

Ill. Department ofNatural 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 ofthc 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 lAC218.204(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 affectfuture 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