ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 19, 1987
JOLIET SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—159
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 3. Anderson):
On February 9, 1987, Joliet moved the Board to enter into
the record of this proceeding a transcript attached to the
motion. The transcript purports to be that “of the Board’s
deliberations” in this proceeding at the Board meeting held on
February 5, 1987. Joliet asserts that this transcript is
“relevant information” whose inclusion is required pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.107, and that Joliet wishes this transcript
included for purposes of appeal.
The Appellate Court for the Third District, to which any
appeal in this action would lie, has held that such transcripts
are not properly part of the record on review. In Illinois Power
Co. v. IPCB and, IEPA, 100 Ill. App. 3d 528, 426 N.E.2d 1258, 1263
(1981), the court affirmed the Board’s denial of a similar motion
to complete the record by inclusion of a transcript of the
Board’s deliberations. The Court stated that:
“Several reasons exist why any transcript of such
meeting is not part of the record for purposes of
appeal. First, the opinions of individual Board
members are personal in nature and not actions of
the Board. Furthermore, such is not evidence.
Also, the accuracy of the recorded information is
disputed since a Board meeting, unlike a hearing
before the Board, is not required to be recorded
stenographically, or by another recording method
(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch Ill 1/2, par. 1005,
1032).
Furthermore, with respect to this particular transcript, the
Board notes that the meeting was transcribed by a shorthand
reporter of Joliet’s choosing, and that the Board itself did not
have the meeting recorded. While there is no other transcript
with which to compare Joliet’s, the Board challenges the accuracy
of the recording and transcription of various words ascribed to
76-41
—2—
various individuals. The most glaring example of this occurs in
the final line of the transcript at page 7, line 11, which reads
“Mr. Flemal: It’s done, for 60, thank you.” From this it might
appear that Dr. Flemal was announcing accomplishment of a task in
consideration for 60 “somethings”. In fact, Chairman Dumelle to
whom this statement should have been attributed, was announcing
adoption of the Opinion and Order by a vote of six to zero (6—0).
This pinpoints another defect in this transcript: it does
not fully reflect all of the Board’s deliberations during the
afternoon session of its February 5 meeting. Prior to
adjournment of the meeting, but after discussion of another
agenda item and after Joliet’s counsel and court reporter had
left the room, Board Member Meyer sought and obtained leave of
the Board for reconsideration of the matter, whereupon Mr. Meyer
changed his vote to one of dissent.
Thus, even if this transcript were to be considered
“evidence”, the Board would deny entry of this inaccurate and
incomplete document into the record. In short, the motion is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contro
Board, he~ebycertify that th~above Order was adopted on
the
/7~
day of __________________________, 1987 by a vote
of ________________.
L~4~
Dorothy M. ~unn, Clerk
~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
76-42
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 19, 1987
DEERE AND COMPANY,
)
(Plow and Planter Works),
)
Petitioner,
v
)
PCB 86—162
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
JEFFREY C. FORT, MARTIN
CRAIG, CHESTER
& SONNENSCHEIN, AND
ELIZABETH 0. SHAW, DEERE & COMPANY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER.
WILLIAM D. INGERSOLL, ESQ.,, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter comes before the Board on the October 2, 1986
petition for variance and October 31, 1986 amended petition for
variance filed by Deere & Company (“Deere”). Deere seeks
variance from the requirements of 35 jIll. Adm. Code 215.204(k),
215.211(b) and 215.2l2(c)* for three flowcoaters located at its
Plow and Planter Works in Moline, Illinois. The variance is
requested for such time necessary for the Board to rule favorably
on a request for a site—specific rule change (R87—l) or 18 months
from the date of denial of such
reauest. The Il1f~~s
Environmental Protection Agency
(“Ager~cy1
~. ~i~u
recommendation that variance be granted for a period of three and
one—half years, subject to conditions, on December 22, 1986.
Hearing was held on January 8, 1987 in Moline, Illinois.
Petitioner’s facility is located on a narrow strip of land
of 81 acres located between the Mississippi River and Third
Avenue in Moline, Rock Island County, Illinois. The factory
currently employs approximately 1300 persons. In the future,
products manufactured at the Plow & Planter facility will consist
of planters, hydraulic components and hardware. The facility
currently has seven valid operating permits granted by the
Agency. However, by the end of December 1987 only two paint
*Although the petition requests relief from 215.212(b), this is
apparently a typographical
error.
76-43
—2—
systems will remain at the facility; these are designated
Department 62 and Department 88. Pet, at 2. Department 62
contains the three flowcoaters at issue in this variance; they
are specifically referred to as the “green prime”, “green
topcoat” and “yellow topcoat” flowcoaters,. Pet, at 1.
Paint systems in Department 62 share a common pre—paint
washer and a common paint drying oven at 180°F. Parts to be
painted green are routed through the green primer flowcoat unit,
then to the paint drying oven, From the oven the parts are
routed through the green finish coat flowcoat unit and thence
back through the drying oven. Parts to be painted yellow pass
through a yellow paint flowcoat and are dried in the common
oven. Parts to be painted black are either routed to a black
flowcoat unit and dried in the common oven or to a small black
dip tank and dried in a separate oven. Under the variance, the
green and yellow flowcoaters would continue to utilize solvent—
based paints with solvent added for viscosity control. By
December 31, 1987 the black flowcoater and black dip tank will
have been converted to water—borne paints. Pet. at 3. The VOM
emissions from the painting operations at the facility are
exhausted through stacks to the atmosphere.
35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(k) provides for a limitation of
3.5 pounds of volatile organic matter per gallon (lb VOM/gal) for
prime coating and 4.3 lb VOM/gal for the top coat. Section
215.211(b) requires compliance by December 31, 1987 and Section
215.212(c) requires submission of a compliance plan by December
31, 1986. Emissions from the three flowcoat operations at the
Plow and Planter facility range from 5.1 to 5.9 pounds VOM per
gallon of paint as applied. Based on these figures, Deere has
calculated that its actual emissions are 91.7 tons VOM per year
and its allowable emissions are 18.9 tons VOM per year for a
~::~i
excesF emissions of approximately 73 tons VOM per year.
Pet. at 5.
Rock Island County is designated as an attainment area for
ozone. The closest non—attainment areas are Chicago at 160 miles
to the east and the St. Louis Metro—East (Illinois) area at 210
miles to the south. An ambient air monitor for ozone is located
less than two miles east of Petitioner’s facility. No violation
of the ambient air quality standard for ozone has been recorded
by this monitor since 1983. Rec. at 2. The Agency states that
the nearest residence is located approximately one—fourth mile
south of the main production and painting areas of the facility
and that emissions from the facility have a detectable solvent
odor. However, the Agency has no odor complaints on record.
Rec. at 2.
Deere states that it has been unable to develop compliant
coatings suitable for the flowcoaters in question. Deere states
that the lowest cost option for achieving compliance is the
76-44
—3—
elimination of the flowcoaters and their replacement with
alternate technology. Incineration and carbon adsorption were
both rejected as more expensive than this approach. The cost of
eliminating and replacing the flowcoaters is stated to be
$1,526,700 in capital and $75,000 in annual operating and
maintenance to achieve a reduction of 73 tons of VOM emissions
annually. This translates into an annualized cost of $5,617 per
ton. The Agency did not strenuously object to the computation of
this figure but did note that the 17.5 interest rate upon which
the computation was made is much too high in today’s economy.
The Agency stated that nonetheless, even using a lower interest
rate the cost per ton would appear to be unreasonable. Rec. at
3. Deere submits that implementation of this alternative, which
it considers its best option, does not constitute reasonably
available control technology (RACT). Consequently, Deere is
pursuing site—specific regulatory relief in R87—1. Deere asserts
that it would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship to
require compliance while it pursues regulatory relief. However,
should the relief be denied, Deere has developed a technically
feasible compliance plan which is capable of being fully
implemented within eighteen (18) months.
Deere states that it has investigated many alternatives in
an attempt to find a practicable solution to VOM compliance
including the use of:
1. water—borne paint in flowcoaters
2. fume incineration
3. exempt solids
4. powder coating
5. electro—deposition
6. high solids net spray
7. water—borne dip
Each of these options was rejected, however, for reasons of
appearance, performance, technical feasibility or economic
reasonableness. See Pet, at 7—10.
Environmental Impact
Deere states that any environmental impact will be minimal
since there will be no increase in emissions over historical
levels. In fact, as a result of using water—borne and high
solids paints where feasible, there will be an absolute decrease
in emissions. In this regard, Deere notes that by December 31,
1987 all existing systems except the green prime, green topcoat
76-45
—4—
and yellow topcoat flowcoaters in Department 62 will have been
eliminated or switched to compliant coatings.
Moreover, Deere noted at hearing that emissions at the
facility have dropped from approximately 900 tons in 1980 to a
projected level of 91 tons for 1987. This is approximately a 90
redution in emission levels. R. at 14. Two other Deere
facilities in the Quad—City area have also experienced
significant drops in VOM emissions. One facility experienced a
drop in emission levels from 990 tons in 1983 to approximately
420 tons projected for 1987 for a 58 to 60 reduction; the other
has dropped from 1979 levels of 84 tons to 60 tons in 1986 for a
21 reduction. R. at 16—17. Overall, Deere estimates that a
total 1,400 ton reduction in VOM emissions occurred over the 1980
to 1987 time period in its facilities alone in the Quad—Cities
area. R. at 17.
Deere also noted that other VOM emission sources in the area
have been closed or are projected to close shortly. These
include: the International Harvester Farmall Tractor Plant, the
American Air Filter facility, the Case International Rock Island
facility and the Case International Bettendorf facility. R. at
20.
The Agency stated at hearing that this evidence coupled with
the monitored data concerning ozone in the area indicates that
the level of excess emissions that would be allowed by the
granting of the variance would not adversely impact air quality
in the Quad—Cities area and would not jeopardize the maintenance
of the Nationa~.Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. P. at
33.
The Board notes that both Petitioner and the Agency are
careful to point out that the closest non—attainment areas are
160 miles east (Chicago) and 210 miles south (East St. Louis).
Rec. at 2, Pet, at 2. While the Board is appreciative of the
difficulties associated with determining the potential for ozone
transport, it does not believe that such recitations demonstrate
that transport is not occurring. However, since Deere has been
successful in reducing VOM emissions by approximately 1400 tons
over all its facilities in the Quad—Cities area over a seven year
period, and at this facility from 900 tons per year to 91 tons
per year. The Board finds that any environmental impact will be
minimal. The Board finds that in light of the costs to
Petitioner and the minimal environmental impact associated with
granting the relief requested, that denial of the variance would
constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. Accordingly,
the Board will grant variance subject to conditions as suggested
by the Agency.
76-46
—5—
ORDER
Deere & Company is hereby granted a variance from 35 Ill. Adrn.
Code Sections 215.211(b), 215.212(c), and 215.204(k) for its
green prime, green topcoat and yellow topcoat flowcoaters at its
Plow and Planter works in Moline, Illinois, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This variance shall expire on August 19, 1990;
2. Painting operations in Department No. 05 shall be
discontinued;
3. Painting operations in Department No. 07, 40, 44, and 75
shall be discontinued by December 31, 1987;
4. Painting operations in Department No. 88 shall comply
with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(k) by December
31, 1987;
5, Painting operations in Department No. 62 shall comply
with the following limitations by December 31, 1987:
a. Black topcoater flowcoater shall comply with
Section 215.204(k);
b. Black dip tank shall comply with Section
215.204(k);
c. çreen prime flowcoatershall not emit more than 5.8
lb VOM/gal of coating (annual average basis), less
water, delivered to the coating applicator;
d. Green topcoat flowcoater shall not emit more than
5.9 lb/ VOM/gal of coating (annual average basis),
less water, delivered to the coating applicator;
e. Yellow topcoat flowcoater shall not emit more than
5.1 lb VOM/gal of coating (annual average basis),
less water, delivered to the coating applicator;
6. Petitioner shall submit reports to the Agency, Division
of Air Pollution Control, 5415 North University, Peoria,
Illinois, every three months reporting paint (including
VOM content) and solvent usage during the previous three
months;
7. Petitioner shall begin the compliance project schedule
contained in the amended petition in this matter dated
October 31, 1986 and attached to this Order no later
than two years from the date of this variance order and
shall be in compliance by August 19, 1990; and
76-47
—6—
8. Within forty—five (45) days after the date of variance
order, Petitioner shall execute a certification of
acceptance of this variance by which it agrees to be
bound by its terms and conditions. Such certification
shall be sent to the Agency’s attorney of record. This
forty—five (45) day period shall be held in abeyance for
any period during which this matter is appealed. The
form of the certification shall be substantially as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I, (We)
,
hereby
accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 86—162,
dated February 19, 1987.
Petitioner
By: Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member B. Forcade concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cert)ify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the /~7~Zday of
~
,
1987, by a vote
of
~—O
.
/Y
Dorothy~
~-t~--~4
M./Gunn,
Y)~
Clerk
~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
76-48