ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 9,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R91—9
PETITION OF DM1,
INC. FOR
)
(Site-Specific Rulemaking)
SITE-SPECIFIC AIR REGULATIONS
)
35
ILL.
ADM. CODE 215.215
)
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by M. Nardulli):’
On February
4,
1991,
DM1,
Inc.
(DM1), filed a proposal for a
site-specific rulemaking pursuant to Section 27 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch. 111
1/2, par.
1027).
The proposal would amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215
by adding a new Section 215.215.
The new Section would set an
emission rate for volatile organic material
(VOl.1) emissions from
the paint deck operations of DMI’s Goodfield,
Illinois plant.
On March 28,
1991,
the Board determined that pursuant to
Section 27 of the Act, an Economic Impact Study was not necessary
for the proposal.
On July 11,
1991,
the Board sent this
regulatory proposal to First Notice, without ruling on the merits
of the proposal.
Today the Board acts to. send this proposed rule
to Second Notice.
Hearing was held on August 27,
1991,
in Eureka, Woodford
County,
Illinois.
In addition to representatives for the
Petitioner and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”), the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
participated in the hearing.
No other members of the public
attended.
In addition, to the participants at hearings, public
comments were received from the Administrative Code Division of
the Secretary of State’s Office and the Department of Commerce
and Community Affairs.
BACKGROUND
DM1
is a farm implement manufacturer located in a largely
rural area used almost exclusively for farming, near Goodfield,
Woodford County,
Illinois.
(Pet.
42).
DM1 is employee-owned and
currently employs 289 people.
DM1 asserts that it is Woodford
1
The Board wishes to acknowledge the contributions of attorney
Marie
Tipsord who assisted
in the preparation
of the First and
Second Notice Opinions and Orders and who acted as hearing officer.
2
The Petition will be cited as (Pet.
);
comments will be cited
as
(P.C.
X, p.) and the Transcript will be cited as
(Tr.)
129—141
2
County’s largest employer.
DM1 has two separate permitted
processes,
the paint room and the paint deck.
(Pet.
4).
Only
the emissions from the paint deck are subject to this rulemaking.
Woodford County and the surrounding counties comprise, an
attainment area for ozone and, according to DM1, no exceedance of
the ozone ambient air quality standards has been recorded at the
closest monitor
(Peoria)
“in the past several years”.
(Pet.
4).
The paint deck operations at DM1 consist of two processes.
One process is for large pieces with smooth even surfaces which
are pain’ted in a spray booth with a hand held spray gun.
This
process “has proven highly successful, both pragmatically and
environmentally, and the VON content of the paint is compliant
with”
the, rule of general applicability.
(Pet.
5).
The second
process is for smaller intricate parts which cannot be painted
with the hand held spray gun.
Parts are dipped into a paint dip
tank then moved by conveyor to a bake oven for drying.
(Pet.
6).
It is this process for which DM1 seeks a site—specific rule.
DISCUSSION
The rule of general applicability which DM1 is seeking site-
specific relief from is 35 Ill. Adm. Code 2l5.204(j)(3).
Section
215.204(j) (3)
sets emission limits for Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Coating.
The limits set for “extreme performance
coating” are 4.2 kg/l and 3.5 lb/gal.
DM1
is specifically asking
that its VON emissions rates be set at the following limits:
VOM limit,
lb/gal
(less water)
Rolling 30—day
Application
Daily Average
avera~e,lb/day
Spray coat
3.5
(at spray gun)
Dip top coat
4.2
(at time of
addition to dip
tank)
Dip tank make-up
61
solvent addition
(Pet.
8)
DM1 stated that since solvent is continuously lost from the
dip tank it is necessary to add make-up solvent to the tank in
order to maintain viscosity.
The rate of solvent loss depends on
several factors including room temperature and rate of
production, making prediction of solvent make-up is difficult,
according to DM1.
DM1 is projecting a need based on records for
the fourth quarter of 1990 for about 61 pounds per day on
average.
Thus,
DM1 requests a rolling 30 day average of 61
lb/day.
(Pet.
9).
129—142
3
The Agency objected to the inclusion of the spray coat
application limit because of no relief “is necessary or
requested” for the spray coat.
The spray coat would still be
subject to the allowed emission rates in Section 212.204, which
the spray coat application can meet.
DM1
is requesting relief which is similar to relief the
Board has granted to John Deere Harvester located in Moline
(see
In the Matter of John Deere Harvester
-
Moline, R87-1,
(November
3,
1988)) and Roadmaster
(see In the Matter of the Site Specific
petition’ of Roadmaster,
R88-19
(April 26,
1990)).
(Pet.
7).
DM1
contrasts its request for relief from the rule of general
applicability with the requests by both John Deere and
Roadmaster.
DM1 states that its request calls for a lower
emission rate than the other two requests; otherwise DM1 is in
the same position as those two companies.
(Pet.
10).
DMI’s effort to achieve compliance with the rule of general
applicability date back to 1984, when DM1 began to search for a
system which would achieve compliance.
(Pet.
5).
In 1986,
DM1
set up a special management team to resolve the issue but was
unable to find a solution to meet the December 31,
1987
compliance deadline.
(Pet.
5).
DM1 sought and received a
variance
(PCB 88—132) to operate while a new system was
installed.
(Pet.
6).
DM1 is currently seeking to extend its
variance (PCB 90-227) until the site-specific relief is granted
or until one year after site-specific relief is denied.
(Pet.
Ex.
A
p.
31).
The
new
system,
which
is
still
in
use
at
the
plant,
was
installed at a cost of $225,000.
DM1 intended to use water-based
paints in the system, which would have resulted in sufficiently
low VON emissions to achieve compliance.
(Pet.
6).
DM1 did in
fact use the water—based paints in the new system for around
twenty months.
However, the quality of the paint was below DMI’s
expectations.
The paint showed “poor stability,
failed to dry a
proper hardness ~sicJ, tended to separate, left white flecks or
speckles
in painted finishes, provided poor edge coverage which
resulted in surface rust problems, failed to consistently meet
thickness specifications, and formed fisheye patterns in the
finished paint surface.”
(Pet.
6).
DM1 and its paint supplier worked to try and solve the paint
problems; however, on September 4,
1990,
the paint supplier
advised DM1 that it had “exhausted all avenues available to find
a solution”.
(Pet.
7).
DM1 then investigated alternative forms
of
compliance,
including
an
afterburner
system,
but
found
the
alternative
methods
were
cost
prohibitive.
(Pet.7).
DM1
stated
in
its
petition
that:
One bid, for instance called for installation
of 2000 SCFN Eisenmann unit at a cost of
129—143
4
around $300,000; amortized over ten years,
such a
system would cost DM1 about $65,000
per year, but would result in the elimination
of only around 9.2 tons per year of VON
emission, resulting in a yearly cost per ton
of emission. elimination of around $7,065.
(Pet.
7).
DM1 contrasts the cost for it to achieve compliance with the
estimate provided to the Board
in the RACT II rulemaking (R80-5).
In that ~rulemaking,the “Illinois Institute of Natural Resources
stated that compliance with the rule in attainment areas would be
around $1,032 per ton of required reduction.”
(Pet.
9).
The Agency supports DMI’s request for site specific
rulemaking and states:
The Agency believes that compliance is
economically unreasonable in this case.
Further, the Agency believes that the 8.8 ton
annual increase in volatile organic emission
from DM1 will have minimal environmental
impact in this attainment area.
(P.C.
5,
p.
6).
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 27 of the Act the Board may adopt
“regulations specific to individual persons or sites”.
In
promulgating regulations under the Act, the Board shall take into
consideration the physical conditions and character of the
surrounding areas, the nature of existing air quality as well as
the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of reducing
the pollution.
The Board finds that DM1 has presented
information which indicates that the rule of general
applicability is not economically reasonable for its facility.
Further, the Board finds that DM1 has presented adequate evidence
that the allowance of a higher emission rate will not “contribute
to a violation of ambient air quality standards”.
(P.C.
5,
p.
2).
Therefore, the Board will proceed to second notice with this
proposed rulemaking with changes to the proposal agreed to by the
parties.
The Board notes that the language proposed by DM1 is
identical to the language contained in the Roadmaster site-
specific regulation, except for the differing emission standards.
Thus,
the language in this proposal has already been reviewed by
the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
ORDER
129 -144
5
The Board hereby proposes for Second Notice the following
amendments to
35 Ill.
Adin. Code 215.
The Clerk of the Board is
hereby directed to file prop.osed amendments with the Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules
Section 215.215 DM1 Emissions Limitations
Notwithstanding the limitation of Section 215.204(1) (3), the DM1,
Inc.,
Goodfield,
Illinois plant shall not cause or permit the
emission of volatile organic material from its existing paint
dock opdrations,
including overall emissiono from its exiriting
dip tank
spray
gun
and bake oven system ~
~
ç~t1~epair~t
~cç
operatiç~
to exceed a daily average of ~3“S lb/gal for the
spray coat application
4
2 lb/gal ~-e~
4fl
the dip to~coat
ap~1ication
tanlç
and a rolling 30-day ~p~4~a—average
of 61
lb/day for the
dip
tank make-un solvent”add t’Iän--
~
DM1,
Inc.
shall fulfill all of the following conditions:
j~j DM1,
Inc.
shall contact at least three
(3) paint
vendors each year in a continuing search for a
compliant coating that it can successfully use in its
existing paint deck operations,
including any paint
vendors suggested by the Agency in a writing delivered
to DM1,
Inc. by certified mail
II?1
If any vendor provides DM1,
Inc. with laboratory test
results which demonstrate that DM1,
Inc. may be able to
use the vendor’s paint in its existing paint deck
operations as a substitute for the existing paint,
DM1,
Inc. will conduct production tests of that paint
jgj.
DM1,
Inc. will submit a report to the Agency by March
1
of each year that includes a summary of its efforts
during the preceding calendar year,
as those efforts
relate to DM1, Inc.’s compliance with the foregoing
conditions contained in subsections
(a) and
(b), above
jç~.J
If DM1,
Inc.
locates a compliant paint that it can
successfully use in its existing paint deck operations.
and the net annual expense of using the compliant paint
is not more than ten percent
(10)
greater than the
then current net annual expense incurred in the
existing painting process, DM1,
Inc.-r shall convert its
present paint deck operations to the use of that paint
within 180 days after the final successful testing of
such a paint; and
J~j This Section shall expire Within 18* days at~~~ina4
sc~~essfu1t~ti~ic~
o~
p
~oap1ian~
p~4ntin
~
~u
ec~ion
(4)
~bovef
or
on
3”anuary
1
2000
at
whic h.
time
DM1,
Inc. shall
129—145
6
comply with the provisions that generally apply to VON
emissions.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
do hereby cer i~ythat the ábç~v~
Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
.
—‘
day of
‘
1992,
by
a
vote of
‘
I
Control Board
129—146