ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

3,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE PETITION OF JOHN DEERE

)

HARVESTER—MOLINE (FORMERLY

)

R87—1

PLOW

& PLANTER) WORKS OF

)

DEERE

& COMPANY

)

ADOPTED RULE.

FINAL ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Theodore Meyer):

This matter

is before the Board on

a petition for amendment

to regulations

filed

by John Deere Harvester—Moline

(formerly

Plow and Planter) Works of Deere

& Company

(herein Deere)

on

December

23,

1986.

Deere’s petition seeks

to add

a new section

to

35 Ill.

Adm. Code

215, which

imposes organic material emission

standards and limitations.

Specifically,

the petition requests

that Deere’s Harvester—Moline Works be exempted from 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 215.204(k), which sets

a limit of 3.5—4.8 pounds per gallon

(lb/gal)

on volatile organic material

(VOM)

emissions from the

coating of heavy off—highway vehicles.

Deere asks that

its

existing green and yellow flocoating operations be allowed

to

emit up to

a weekly average of 6.2 lb/gal.

A merit hearing on this proposal was held on October

28,

1987

in Moline,

Illinois.

The Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency) appeared

at the hearing but did not comment or

state

its position on the proposal.

On February

4,

1988 the

Department

of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR) filed

a

negative declaration,

setting

forth

its determination that the

preparation

of

a formal economic impact study

is not necessary in

this proceeding.

The negative declaration was based upon DENR’s

finding that

the cost of making a formal

study

is

economically

unreasonable

in relation to the value

of

the study to the Board

in determining any adverse economic impact of the proposed

regulation.

On March

17, 1988 the Board received notification

that the Economic and Technical Advisory Committee

(ETAC)

concurred

in DENR’s negative declaration.

On May 19, 1988,

the Board proposed

the requested rule for

First

Notice.

The

proposed

rule

was

published

in

the

Illinois

Register on June

10,

1988,

at

12

Ill.

Reg.

9787.

The Board

received only one public comment after

the June

10

publication of

the proposed rule.

The Department

of Commerce and

Community

Affairs

filed

a

comment

on

July

22,

1988

which

stated

that the proposed rule would have

no

effect

on

small

businesses

regulated

by

the

rule.

The

Board

notes

that

this

rule

applies

93—389

---

—2—

only to Deere’s Harvester—Moline Works

in Moline,

Illinois.

On September

8,

1988,

the Board proposed the

rule

for Second

Notice.

The rule proposed for Second Notice was unchanged from

the May

19 version.

On October

19,

1988 the Joint Committee on

Administrative Rules

(JCAR)

filed

its Certification of No

Objection to the rule.

To satisfy JCAR’s concerns,

the Board has

agreed

to update the authority note and correct the table of

contents.

The actual text

of the rule adopted

today

is unchanged

from the version which was proposed by the Board

on May 19, 1988.

Background

Deere’s Harvester—Moline facility

is located

on

a narrow

strip of

land located

between the Mississippi River

and

Third

Avenue

in Moline, Rock Island County,

Illinois.

Harvester—Moline

employs approximately 1,300 people and produces planters and

hydraulic components

and hardware

for

equipment

manufactured

at

other Deere facilities.

Most of the product

coating at

Harvester—Moline

is done by flocoating.

This process floods

a

part with paint

as

it passes through

the painting chamber.

The

excess paint

is then recovered and used again.

Deere states that

flocoating

is particularly well—suited

to painting the products

manufactured

at

Harvester—Moline.

(Transcript

of

October

28,

1988 hearing

(R.)

10—11,

20—21.)

The three

flocoating

lines which are the subject of this

petition are commonly referred

to

as the “green

prime”,

“green

topcoat” and “gallon topcoat” flocoaters.

(Ex.

1.)

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 2l5.204(k)(2) provides for

a limit

of 3.5 lb/gal

for prime

coaling and

4.3 lb/gal

for

the top coat.

Long—term VOM emissions

from these three

lines vary from 5.1

to

5.9 pounds per gallon

of

paint

as applied.

(R.

11.)

Based on these figures,

the actual

emissions from Harvester—Moline are 91.7 tons VOM per year, while

allowable emissions are 18.9 tons VOM per year.

This results

in

excess emissions of approximately

73 tons VOM per year.

This

excess

is entirely the result

of emissions from the green and

yellow flocoat operations.

(Ex.

1.)

Harvester—Moline

is

currently operating under

a variance granted by the Board on

February 19,

1987,

in PCB 86—162.

That

variance, which expires

on August

19, 1990,

allows the green prime flocoater

to emit up

to

5.8 lb/gal

on

an annual average basis.

The green

topcoat

flocoater

is limited

to 5.9 lb/gal

(annual average basis), while

the yellow topcoat

line

is limited

to 5.1 lb/gal.

(Ex.

4 at

p.

5.)

Rock Island County,

where Harvester—Moline

is located,

is

designated

as an attainment area

for ozone.

The closest non—

attainment

areas are Chicago,

160 miles

to the east,

and the St.

Louis

(Illinois) metropolitan area,

210 miles

to the south.

~\n

ambient

air monitor

for ozone

is

located approximately two miles

east

of Harvester—Moljne.

No violation

of the ozone standard has

93—390

---

—3—

been recorded

at this site since 1983.

Deere has also provided

monitoring

information from Rockford,

Elgin,

and Cary,

Illinois,

and from Beloit and Madison, Wisconsin.

Except

for one

occurrence at Cary

in 1987, none of these stations has shown any

violation of

the zone standard since at least 1984.

(R.

15—16;

Ex.

5,

Attachment B.)

Proposal and Justification

Deere asks that the existing green and yellow flocoating

operations at Harvester—Moline be allowed

to emit up to

a weekly

average of 6.2 lb/gal.

As noted above,

these three flocoating

lines are currently allowed

to emit between

5.1 and 5.9 lb/gal

(annual

average basis)

under

the terms of the variance.

At

hearing, John Smith,

a Deere engineer, testified that Deere

is

requesting

a slightly higher

limitation of 6.2 lbs/gal

in order

to allow

for

the variation

in the amount of painting done from

day

to day.

Mr.

Smith stated

that

the major coating of concern

is the 5.9 lb/gal coating,

and that the request

for 6.2 lb/gal

seeks

to allow

a reasonable margin for the variation in

production which results

in

a fluctuation

in the amount of

solvent added

on

a given day.

(R.

19—20.)

A similar explanation

was given

for

the request

that the

limitation be based on

a

weekly average.

Mr.

Smith pointed

to the day—to—day variation

in

operation

of the flocoating system,

and stated that even with

automatic viscosity control, there

is not

a uniform rate of

application because

of the varying size and surface area

of the

parts to be painted.

Mr.

Smith further testified that solvent

addition varies from day

to day,

and

that some solvent loss

occurs over the weekend and during the weekly cleanup.

Finally,

Mr.

Smith noted that the Board granted a weekly limitation

to the

National Can Corporation in R85—28.

That regulation

is found at

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 2l5.206(a)(3).

(R.

18—19.)

Deere believes that

its proposed rule

is justified

for three

reasons.

First,

Deere maintains that the cost of meeting the VOM

standard of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(k)

at

the Harvester—Moline

facility is

far above what can be considered reasonably available

control technology

(RACT).

Deere states

that it has been unable

to develop compliant coatings suitable for

these flocoaters,

despite an intensive effort

to do so.

(See generally R.

27—31;

Ex.

1;

Ex.

8,

pp.

Bl—Bl5..)

Deere has evaluated three compliance

options and contends that the lowest cost option

is the

elimination

of the flocoaters and the installation

of a new

indexing dip system.

The capital costs of this system are

estimated at $1,526,700

and

annual operating costs are estimated

at $75,000.

(R.

12;

Ex.

8.)

Given that compliance would serve

to abate

the excess

73 tons of VOM emitted annually by Harvester—

Moline, Deere calculates that the annual abatement cost per

ton

would

be $5,617.

Deere points out that in the economic

impact

study

(EcIS)

prepared by the Illinois Institute of Natural

Resources

in

May

1981

for

the

RACT

II

proceedings

before

this

93—391

---

—4—

Board, abatement costs for

surface

coatings

for

miscellaneous

metal parts in attainment areas were projected at $1,032 per

ton.

(P.

12).

During

the previous variance proceeding, both

the

Agency and the Board noted that these

costs

per

ton were figured

using the 17 percent

interest rate used

in the RACT II

EcIS.

While maintaining that

it

is appropriate

to use the same baseline

in order

to compare the relative cost for Harvester—Molirie

to the

expected norm,

at the hearing

in this regulatory proceeding Deere

provided

a calculation of abatement cost using

a nine percent

interest rate.

This calculation resulted

in

a cost of $4,298 per

ton.

(R.

13;

Ex.

5, Attachment A.)

Regardless of which figure

is used for Harvester—Moline facility, Deere contends that the

cost per ton

is clearly beyond RACT costs envisioned by the Board

when establishing these regulations.

In sum, Deere insists that

although compliance

is technologically

feasible, such compliance

is economically unreasonable, given

the small amount

of its VOM

emissions.

*

The second reason Deere believes that the proposed site-

specific rule

is justified is that there

is no requirement for

the imposition of PACT because Harvester—Moline

is located

in an

attainment area.

Deere points out that the level

of VOM

emissions from Harvester—Moline has been significantly reduced,

from 916 tons in 1980 to 91.7 tons

in

1987.

This

is

a reduction

of approximately 90 percent.

(P.

17;

Ex.

2,

p.

14;

Ex.

3.)

In

addition

to these reductions, overall VOM emissions

in Rock

Island County have been further

reduced because other emitters

have shut down or moved

out

of state.

In addition

to the

825

tons of reductions from Harvester—Moline,

two other John Deere

facilities

in the area reduced VOM emissions by 588 tons,

and the

closing of six other manufacturing facilities

reduced emissions

by approximately 918 tons.

(R.

17,

31—36;

Ex.

3.)

Deere also

maintains that the Harvester—Moline facility

is no longer

a

“major stationary source”

as that term is defined for purposes

of

RACT controls under the Clean Air Act,

since the maximum expected

emissions are under

100

tons.

(R.

18.)

Third,

Deere contends that

the VOM emissions from the

Harvester

Moline facility do not cause or contribute

to any

adverse effect upon air quality.

As set forth above, Deere

introduced monitoring data from monitoring stations

in Moline and

other

Illinois and Wisconsin cities.

Except for one occurrence

*Deere has also provided cost estimates

for an electrodeposition

dip paint system (E—coat)

and for incineration.

The total first

year cost estimate

(capital expense plus operating cost)

for the

E—coat system

is

$2,808,700,

and the estimate

for incineration

is

$3,900,334.

While the Board believes

that:

the incineration

estimate may be high, even

a more conservative estimate would

not

be less expensive than the indexing dip system.

(Ex.

8.)

93—39 2

---

—5—

at Cary,

Illinois

in

1987, none of

the stations have recorded any

violation of the ozone standard since at least

1984.

(R.

16;

Ex.

5, Attachment

B.)

Deere reiterates that

the facility

is located

in an attainment area and is 160—210 miles away from the nearest

non—attainment areas.

Taken together, Deere submits that this

evidence demonstrates that emissions from Harvester—Moline do not

cause or contribute

to any occurrence

of the ozone standard.

Conclusion

The Board

finds that although technologically feasible,

compliance with

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 215.204(k)

is not economically

reasonable

for Deere’s Harvester—Moline facility.

The Board

is

also convinced that any environmental impact of the proposed

regulation will

be minimal.

These findings are based upon the

relatively small amount

of excess VOM emissions from Harvester—

Moline

(73 tons per year) measured against

the cost

of installing

either

a new painting system or add—on control technology.

It

should be pointed out that the fact that the facility is located

160—210 miles from the nearest non—attainment areas does not

demonstrate that ozone transport

is not occurring.

The Board

is

appreciative of the difficulties associated

with determining the

potential

for such transoort,

however.

The Board also notes

that

the Moline—Rock Island area is economically troubled with at

least six major

plant closings

in

the 1980s.

Ironically,

these

plant closings have aided Deere’s case for the proposed

regulation,

since VOM emissions

in the area have been drastically

reduced.

Additionally,

the Board notes

that even

if the proposed

rule

is adopted,

the Harvester—Moline facility is expected

to

emit less than 100 tons of VOM per year.

Thus,

the facility is

apparently not subject

to the imposition

of RACT because

it

is no

longer

a major stationary source.

For

these reasons,

the Board

finds that under

the specific circumstances of this case,

compliance with 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 215.204(k)

is not economically

reasonable for

the existing green

and yellow flocoating

operations at Deere’s Harvester Moline facility.

The Board will

adopt

the requested regulation.

However,

the regulation will be

added

as

a new subsection of

35

Ill. Adm. Code 215.206

“Exemptions from Emission Limitations”, instead of as

a new

section as suggested by Deere.

This will allow all exemptions

from Subpart

F “Coating Operations”

to be found

in one place.

ORDER

The Board hereby adopts,

as final,

the following amendments

to be filed with the Secretary

of State.

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B:

AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

c:

EMISSION STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

93—393

---

—6—

PkRT 215

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS

AND LIMITATIONS

SUBPART

F:

COATING OPERATIONS

Section 215.206

Exemptions from Emission Limitations

a)

The limitations of this Subpart shall

not apply

to:

1)

Coating plants whose emissions of volatile organic

material

as limited by the operating permit will

not exceed 22.7 Mg/year

(25 T/year),

in the

absence

of

air

pollution

control

equipment;

or

2)

Sources used exclusively

for chemical

or physical

analysis

or determination of product quality and

commercial acceptance provided that:

A)

The operation of the source

is not an

integral part of the production process;

B)

The emissions from the source do not exceed

363 kg

(800 lbs)

in any calendar month;

and

C)

The exemption is approved

in writing by the

Agency.

3)

Interior body spray coating material

for three—

piece steel cans used by National Can Corporation

at its Rockford can manufacturing plant

in Loves

Park,

Illinois, provided that:

A)

The emission of volatile organic material

from the

interior body spray coating line

shall not exceed 0.70 kg/i

(5.8

lb/gal)

of

coating material, excluding water, delivered

to the coating applicator;

and

B)

The emission

of volatile organic material

shall comply with the provisions

of Section

215.204 by use of the internal offset

provisions of Section 215.207 computed on

a

weekly weighted average basis.

b)

The limitations

of Section

215.204(j) shall not apply

to the Waukegan,

Illinois,

facilities

of the Outboard

Marine

Corporation,

so

long

as

the

emissions

of

volatile organic material related

to the surface

93—394

---

—7—

coating of miscellaneous metal

parts and products at

those facilities do

not exceed

35 tons per year.

c)

Notwithstanding

the limitations of Section

215.204(k)(2),

the John Deere Harvester—Moline Works

of

Deere

& Company, Moline,

Illinois,

shall not cause or

permit the emission of volatile organic material from

its existing green

and yellow

flocoatirig operations

to

exceed

a weekly average

of 6.2 lb/gal.

(Source:

Amended

aL

12

Ill.

Reg.

_____,

effective

______________

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

P.

Flemal was not present.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

3A~

day

of

__________________,

1988,

by

a

vote of

4.—~

Illino:

-s

on

Control

Board

93.— 395