ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 11,
1991
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.
FIRST 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
(VOM)
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.
The Board today acts to send this regulatory
proposal
to
First
Notice,
without
ruling on the merits
of the
proposal.
BACKGROUND
DM1
is
a
farm implement manufacturer located in
a
largely
rural area used almost exclusively for
farming,
near Goodfield,
Woodford
County,
Illinois.
(Pet.
41)~
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 painted in
a spray booth with a hand held spray gun.
This
process
“has
proven
highly
successful,
both pragmatically
and
environmentally,
and the VOM 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.
1
The Petition will be cited as
(Pet.
)
124—151
2
DISCUSSION
The rule of general applicability which DM1
is seeking site-
specific relief from is 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(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/i 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 Avera~e
average,
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).
DM1 is requesting relief which is similar to relief the Board
has granted to John Deere Harvester located in Noline (see In the
Matter of John Deere Harvester
-
Moline, R87—l,
(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
124—152
3
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
sic,
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 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).
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.
DM1 has presented information which indicates that
the rule of general applicability is not economically reasonable
for
its facility as justification for
a site-specific
rule.
In
addition, DM1 has presented evidence of its efforts to comply with
the rule of general applicability as well as information on sites
similarly situated to DM1.
Therefore, the Board will proceed with
124—153
4
the language for a site-specific rule proposed by DM1 with minor
editing changes.
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.
The Board again notes that this action does not constitute the
Board’s adoption of a substantive position concerning the proposal.
ORDER
The Board direct the Clerk to cause First Notice publication in the
Illinois Register of the following proposed rule:
Section 215.215 DM1 Emissions Limitations
Notwithstanding the limitation of Section 215,204
(i)
(3~.the DM1.
Inc..
Goodfield,
Illinois plant
shall
not
cause
or
permit
the
emission of volatile organic material from its existing paint deck
operations. including overall emissions from its existing dip tank,
spray ~un and bake oven system,
to exceed a daily average of 3.5
lb/~alfor the spray coat application, 4.2 lb/gal for the dip to~
coat ai~lication,and a rolling 30-day average of 61 lb/day for the
dip tank make-up solvent addition.
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
A~encvin a writing delivered to DM1,
Inc. by certified
mail
j~
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
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
foregoin~
conditions contained in subsections
(a) and
(b). above;
If
DM1,
Inc.
locates
a
compliant
paint
that
it
can
successfully use in its existing paint deck operations,
124—154
5
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.,
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
jgj
This Section shall expire on January
1,
2000,
at which
time DM1,
Inc.
shall
comply with the provisions that
g~nerallyapply to VON emissions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
do hereby
cert’fy that the
a
ye Opinion
and Order
was
adopted on the
__________
day of
____________,
1991, by a vote
of
______.
/
I
erk
Control Board
124—155