ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
May 20,
1993
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOINT PETITION OF DETROIT
DIESEL CORPORATION
AND
THE
)
AS 92-4
ENGINE MANUFACTURERS
)
(Adjusted Standard)
ASSOCIATION FOR ADJUSTED
)
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL. ADM.
)
CODE 240.141
)
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter is before the Board on the November 10,
1993
filing of
a second amended petition for adjusted standard by
Detroit Diesel Corporation and the Engine Manufacturers
Association
(Detroit Diesel).
Detroit Diesel seeks an adjusted
standard from the heavy-duty diesel smoke opacity standards and
test procedures found at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 240.141.
More
specifically,
Detroit Diesel
is seeking an adjusted standard from
the 55
peak opacity standard found at 35 Iii. Adm. Code
240.141(a) (2).
Detroit Diesel proposes an adjusted standard of
eighty—five
(85)
peak smoke opacity for its 1987-1990 Series
60
engines.
On February
1,
1993, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed an amended response to Detroit Diesel’s
second amended petition recommending that the Board grant the
requested relief.
On February 16,
1993,
Detroit Diesel waived
hearing and none has been held.
The Board hereby grants Detroit Diesel’s request for
adjusted standard from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 240.141.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April
27,
1992,
Detroit Diesel, Navistar International
Transportation Corporation
(Navistar),
Cummins Engine Company
(Cummins),
and the Engine Manufacturers Association filed a
petition for adjusted standard from the heavy-duty diesel smoke
opacity standards and test procedures found at
35 Ill. Adm. Code
240.141.
On May 12,
1992, the petitioners filed their proof of
publication as required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.712.
On May 4,
1992,
the petitioners filed an amended adjusted standard
petition.
On May 21,
1992,
the Board issued an order accepting the
petition and directing the petitioners to address certain issues
at hearing.’
On July 9,
1992,
the Agency filed its response
recommending that the requested relief be granted.
0k2-U565
2
On September 29,
1992, the Agency filed a motion requesting
the Board to separate docket AS 92—4 into three dockets for
Detroit Diesel and the Engine Manufacturer’s Association,
Navistar and the Engine Manufacturers Association, and Cummins
and the Engine Manufacturers Association.
In support of its
motion, the Agency asserted that separate dockets were necessary
because each petitioner requested a different opacity standard
and took a different technical approach to support its petition
and because a hearing might not be necessary for each petitioner.
The Agency also asserted that petitioners concurred with the
motion.
On October
1,
1992,
the Board granted the Agency’s motion
and assigned separate docket numbers
(i.e., AS 92-4,
AS 92-il,
and AS 92-12)
to the petitioners, as recommended by the Agency.
In addition, the Board directed all of the petitioners to file
amended petitions no later than November
13,
1992.
In response
to the Board’s October
1,
1992 order, Detroit Diesel, Navistar,
and Cummins each filed amended petitions on November 10,
1992.
On April 2,1993, Navistar and Cummins filed motions to withdraw
their petitions.
On April
8,
1993, the Board granted both
motions and closed dockets AS 92-li and AS 92—12.
BACKGROUND
Detroit Diesel
is
a manufacturer of heavy—duty diesel
engines headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
Although Detroit
Diesel’s engines are manufactured outside of Illinois, the
activity at issue
(i.e.,
smoke emissions of engines in use)
occurs within the State.
As a result, Detroit Diesel’s engines
are subject to the Board’s diesel opacity regulations.
There are
two Series
60 engines subject to the Board’s diesel opacity
standard:
those equipped with an electronic control system known
as DDEC
I and those that are equipped with an electronic control
system known as DDEC II.
APPLICABLE REGULATION
On July 25,
1991, the Board proposed diesel vehicle exhaust
opacity limits, which included exhaust opacity limits for heavy-
duty diesel vehicles operating in Illinois.
(see In the Matter
of:
Diesel Vehicle Exhaust Opacity Limits
(July 25,
1992), R90-
20,
124 PCB 317.)
The regulations, which became effective on
April
7,
1992,
set forth opacity standards for heavy-duty diesel
vehicles aimed at detecting excessive smoke emissions and
emission control system tampering.
As stated above, the opacity
standard from which Detroit Diesel is seeking an adjusted
standard is found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240.141(a) (2).
That
section sta’tes as follows:
a)
The standard for heavy-duty diesel vehicle smoke
opacity is as follows:
01 ~2-U666
3
2)
.
.
.
no heavy-duty diesel-powered vehicle operating
on the roadway within...Illinois shall exceed
fifty-five percent
(55)
peak smoke opacity when
tested in accordance with subsections
(b) and
(c).
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 240.141(b),
in part,
provides:
the
smoke opacity measurement shall be carried out
using a light-extinction type opacimeter capable of
measuring and recording opacity continuously during the
snap idle testing cycle....
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 240.141(c),
in part, provides:
The test procedure using the snap idle cycle shall
occur when the engine is at normal operating
temperature.
The test shall consist of preparation,
preconditioning,
and testing phases.
1)
In the preparation phase,
the vehicle shall
be
placed at rest,
the transmission shall be placed
in neutral, and the vehicle wheels shall be
properly restrained....
2)
In the preconditioning phase, the vehicle shall be
put through a snap idle cycle three or more times
until successive measured smoke opacity reading
are within ten percent
(10)
of each other....
3)
In the testing phase,
the vehicle shall be put
through the snap idle cycle three times.
Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
provides that the Board may specify a level of justification that
is required for a petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard.
35
Ill. Adm. Code 240.141(d)
sets forth the justification needed
by Detroit Diesel to support an adjusted standard from the 55
peak opacity standard for DDC 1987-1990 Series 60 engines.
The
justification is as follows:
the specific characteristics common only to all the
1987-1990 Series 60 engines that result in
noncompliance with the 55
opacity standard;
all USEPA certification and snap idle test data;
economic and technical data related to the logistical
or other perceived difficulties encountered or that may
be encountered if the existing 1987—1990 Series 60
engine software were to be reprogrammed so as to come
r
Li
1
L~/OQ67
4
into compliance;
the alternative opacity standard proposed and
supporting data;
and
supporting data showing that the requested standard
will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the
effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule of
general applicability.
JUSTIFICATION
Characteristics Resulting in Non-Compliance
Although Series
60 engines are available in two different
displacement sizes,
11.1 liters
(L) and 12.7L, and several
different power and speed ratings, they have similar design
characteristics and share many similar components.
The Series 60
engines have six in—line cylinders and operate on a four stroke
cycle.
The engines also are turbocharged, chargecooled, direct
injected, and electronically controlled.
The 11.1L and l2.7L engines, however, have different piston
strokes.
Different ratings are achieved by loading different
software calibrations into an electronic control module
(ECM).
All Series 60 engines control smoke resulting from acceleration
by sensing intake manifold pressure and limiting fuel input when
the combustion air supply is inadequate to permit complete
combustion of the fuel.
These conditions are most frequently
encountered during acceleration when the air supply is limited
because the turbocharger cannot instantaneously respond to the
increased airflow requirement.
A table of maximum allowable fuel
input versus engine speed and boost pressure is programmed into
computer controls.
The computer controls perform a key function
for the engines’ smoke control software.
For each individual
Series 60 rating, the computer controls ensure that federal smoke
limits are met and that acceptable levels of smoke are maintained
under all driving conditions.
Because the turbocharger produces some “boost” throughout
the federal smoke test procedure and most driving conditions, the
smoke control tables originally developed to the 1987-1990 Series
60 engines did not include fueling limits for absolute manifold
pressure less than 105 kiloPascals
(KPa).
Detroit Diesel asserts
that, while the limits in the smoke control tables provide
satisfactory smoke control under actual driving conditions,
a
problem occurs when the engines are subjected to the high rates
of acceleration experienced in the snap idle test adopted by the
Board.
At the high rate of acceleration achieved during the snap
idle test,
the engines pass through their speed range before the
turbo chargers can respond and before there
is any build up of
Cli t;2-0668
5
intake manifold pressure.
As a result, the fuel limiting portion
of the table is never entered and the engines emit higher levels
of smoke during the test than under the federal testing procedure
and under normal operating conditions.’
USEPA Certification and Snag Idle Test Data
Detroit Diesel,
in its petition, includes USEPA’s smoke
certification data for the 1987-1990 Series 60 engines.
(Pet.
Ex.
E.)
Although Detroit Diesel does not have any snap idle test
data on new pre-1991 engines because the snap idle test was not
used until California began using it in 1991,
it provides snap
idle test results from a number of in—service vehicles using 1989
and 1990 engines.
(Pet.
Ex.
F.)
Economic and Technical Data
When the Series 60 engines were first introduced in 1987,
they were equipped with a first generation electronic control
system known as DDEC I.
Engine calibration programming in the
DDEC
I system resides in a programmable read-only memory
(PROM)
within the ECN.
The only way to reprogram the DDEC
I engine
is
to open the ECM and physically remove and replace the PROM.
In
order to prevent the usage of non—approved and certified engine
calibrations, Detroit Diesel discourages PROM replacement
in the
field.
Notwithstanding any PROM replacement, Detroit Diesel
states that the DDEC
I might not be capable of reacting quickly
enough to provide control of fuel input and smoke under the rapid
acceleration conditions experienced in the Board’s snap idle
test.
Detroit Diesel built only 969 DDEC
I engines during the 1987
model year.
Detroit Diesel has not developed PROM calibrations
to reduce the snap idle smoke of DDEC
I engines because of the
low sales volumes of the engines,
the slow response time of the
DDEC
I system,
and the problems associated with in-field
disassembly and PROM replacement.
Late in the 1987 model year, Detroit Diesel introduced
its
second generation electronic control system, DDEC II.
DDEC II
engines possess a much faster computer and an erasable PROM that
can be reprogrammed in the field.
Detroit Diesel distributors
can reprogram the PROM by connecting the vehicle to a computer
1Detroit Diesel has revised the smoke control table to include
fueling limits for absolute intake manifold pressures of less than
lO5KPa for all new Series
60 engines beginning in the 1991 model
year.
As a’ result, all 1991 and later model year Series 60 engines
meet federal
smoke standards,
control smoke under normal driving
conditions,
and meet the 40
snap idle peak smoke opacity
limit
found at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 240.141(a) (1).
0
1.2-0669
6
terminal linked to the factory mainframe computer that contains
all calibration files.
The standard charge for recalibration is
$200.00.
The DDEC II Series 60 engines represent ninety-seven
percent
(97)
of all of the Series 60 engines for which the
adjusted standard has been requested.
Detroit Diesel
is currently recalibrating affected DDEC II
Series 60 engines which are voluntarily brought in by vehicle
owners to comply with California’s diesel opacity rule.
As of
October 1992, Detroit Diesel reported that 29
of all DDEC II
Series 60 engines had been recalibrated and that over 27,000 DDEC
II engines are operating with unmodified calibration.
Alterative Opacity Proposed and Supporting Data
As previously stated, Detroit Diesel proposes an adjusted
peak smoke opacity standard of 85
for all 1987-1990 Series 60
engines.
Detroit Diesel did not evaluate the snap idle smoke
performance of
its 1987-1990 Series 60 engines at the time of
manufacture because it was unaware of the requirement at that
time.
Detroit Diesel,
however, has determined the appropriate
snap idle standard for its engines based on data from two
studies, one conducted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARE)
and one conducted by Detroit Diesel, that examined in-use
vehicles.
The CARB study examined 1990 model year engines in order to
focus on data from relatively low mileage engines
(i.e.,
engines
representative of the design capability of new pre—1991 Series 60
engines).
The data indicates that the distribution of the
opacity results is trimodal
(i.e., Mode I,
II, and III) and that
it
is appropriate to base the snap idle standard on engines in
the intermediate mode, Mode II.
(Pet.
Ex. F-Figure 1.)
Although
the engines in Mode
II appear to be properly performing, they
have not been reprogrammed to upgrade the snap acceleration smoke
control.
Mode II runs from 35
to 80
opacity.
(Pet.
Ex.
F-
Figure 1.)
Engines
in Mode II show a mean snap acceleration smoke
opacity of 58.2
and a standard deviation of 10.7.
(Pet.
Ex. F—
Figure 2)
With this distribution and a 55
peak smoke opacity
cutoff,
62
of the vehicles would be improperly identified as
requiring maintenance
(i.e., the percentage of false positives or
the error of commission rate).
(Pet.
Ex. F—Figure 2.)
Detroit Diesel,
in its study, obtained snap idle data on
seven vehicles powered by pre—1991 Series 60 engines which
supplements the CARB data.
(Pet.
Ex. F-Figures
3 and 4.)
After
being tested with their original calibrations, the engines were
recalibrated with the 1991 snap idle smoke control strategy and
retested.
The average snap idle smoke opacity for the vehicles
with their original calibrations was 75.7.
(Pet.
Ex. F—Figure
0
~.2-O67O
7
3.)
With this figure and a 55
peak smoke opacity limit, Detroit
Diesel determined that approximately 100
of the vehicles would
be improperly identified as requiring maintenance.
(Pet.
Ex.
F-
Figure 4.)
Detroit Diesel believes that no more than 2
of the Series
60 engines will be identified as requiring maintenance.
Accordingly,
Detroit Diesel recommends the 85
peak smoke opacity
standard for its 1987—1990 Series 60 engines because the cutpoint
associated with a 2
error of commission rate for the above two
studies are 80
and 90,
respectively.
Environmental or Health Effects
Detroit Diesel,
in its petition, compares smoke and emission
data obtained on its Series
60 engines with and without the 1991
snap idle smoke controls.
(Pet.
Ex.
G.)
The snap idle controls
dramatically reduced peak smoke opacity observed during the snap
idle test.
However, the calibration change had virtually no
effect on smoke and emissions measured in Agency transient tests,
which represent actual in—use driving conditions.
Because in—use
smoke or emissions profiles of the Series
60 engines operating
with and without the snap idle smoke control programming changes
are similar, Detroit Diesel contends that the adjusted standard
will have no adverse impact on the environment.
Detroit Diesel
also adds that its Series 60 engines meet the applicable federal
smoke standards.
HARDSHIP
Detroit Diesel claims that it will face significant hardship
if its engines are forced to comply with the peak smoke opacity
standards.
Specifically, Detroit Diesel claims either
1) the
engines cannot be altered to comply with the standards without
involving an expensive and complicated process, or 2)
there
is a
high cost associated with having its customers take their engines
out of service to have authorized distributors perform engine
adjustments for the purpose of passing the Board’s snap idle test
procedure.
Detroit Diesel adds that, notwithstanding any
reprogramming costs,
it is not feasible to reprogram 21,000 DDEC
II engines in the near future.
Detroit Diesel finally notes
that,
inasmuch as there is no measurable environmental benefit
associated with making adjustments solely for the purpose of
passing the snap idle test procedure,
it
is appropriate for the
Board to adopt the proposed adjusted standard to avoid
unnecessary costs and false failures.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
Detroit Diesel asserts that the Board may grant the proposed
adjusted standard consistent with federal law.
First, Detroit
Diesel states that the Board’s diesel smoke opacity program will
L
r
U
t
~
*
U ~3
8
likely contribute to Illinois’ efforts to control PM-b
and
localized nuisance conditions because particulate emissions from
diesel engines were included in the background concentrations in
the Agency’s PM-b
proposals
(In the Matter of:
PM-b
Emission
Limits for the McCook and Lake Calumet Areas of Cook county,
Illinois, and the Granite City Area of Madison County,
Illinois:
Amendments to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 211 and 212
(April
9,
1992),
R91—
22,
133 PCB 1).
Detroit Diesel also notes that neither the Clean
Air Act nor the State Implementation Plan mandate a diesel smoke
opacity program.
Section 209 of the Clean air Act,
42 U.S.C.
7543,
states that:
no state or any political subdivision thereof
shall adopt or attempt to enforce any
standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines subject to this part.
No states
shall require certification,
inspection, or
any other approval relating to the control of
emissions from any new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engines as a condition
precedent to the initial retail sale,
titling,
or registration....
Detroit Diesel concludes that,
based on the above, the
Board’s adoption of the diesel opacity program constitutes an
independent effort to further improve ambient air quality in
Illinois.
Detroit Diesel adds that the Board’s current standards
propose a level of opacity measured under different conditions
than the federal opacity regulations.
In fact, Detroit Diesel
asserts that the proposed adjusted standard will more closely
resemble the federal requirements because its engines meet
federal standards where testing is performed under more tightly
controlled conditions that the Board’s procedures provide.
AGENCY RESPONSE
As previously stated, the Agency recommends that the Board
grant Detroit Diesel’s request for relief.
The Agency’s
recommendation is based on its review of all of the data
presented by Detroit Diesel,
including information that CARB has
granted Detroit Diesel an exemption from its own diesel opacity
regulation based on data that is similar to the data presented in
this matter.
The Agency also believes that in—use engines which are
properly certified by the federal program and well maintained
should pass a state vehicle emission program.
The Agency notes
that many of the participants at the hearings held on the diesel
opacity regulations stated that the primary cause of excessive
diesel emissions are due to tampering or improper maintenance.
Accordingly, the Agency believes that the regulation was not
flit
~
L.
—
9
intended to require retrofitting of engines that meet the federal
guidelines, but was intended to deter improper maintenance and
tampering.
The Agency therefore states that exemptions should be
granted for engines that cannot meet the standard because of
inherent engine design characteristics
if the engines meet the
federal certification process.
Finally, the Agency states that Detroit Diesel has
demonstrated in Exhibit G of its petition that the granting of
the eighty-five percent
(85)
adjusted standard for its NY 1987-
1990 Series
60 engines will have minimal environmental impact.
DISCUSSION
Detroit Diesel has demonstrated that compliance with the
standard of general applicability
is economically unreasonable.
The Board also concludes that Detroit Diesel has presented
sufficient data in Exhibit G of its petition showing that
granting the adjusted standard will have a minimal environmental
impact.
The Board accordingly finds that Detroit Diesel has
provided sufficient justification to support its request for
adjusted standard from the 55
peak smoke opacity limit found at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 240.14l(a)(2).
After considering Detroit
Diesel’s justification as well as the Agency’s recommendation
that the requested relief be granted, the Board hereby grants
Detroit Diesel an adjusted standard of 85
peak smoke opacity for
all 1987—1990 model year DDC Series 60 engines.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 28.1(b)
of the Environmental Protection
Act, 415 ILCS 5/28.1
(1992), the Board hereby grants an adjusted
standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240.141(a) (2) to Detroit Diesel
Corporation and the Engine Manufacturers Association.
The
following standard shall become effective on the date of this
order:
Detroit Diesel Corporation is granted an eighty—five
percent
(85)
peak smoke opacity standard for all DDC
1987—1990 model year Series
60 engines in lieu of the
fifty-five percent
(55)
peak opacity standard of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 214.141(a) (2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
(415 ILCS
5/41
(1992)), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
*
t)
(~
~
~
10
establish filing requirements.
(See also 35
Ill.. Adm. Code
101.246, Motion for Reconsideration.)
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi~y~thatthe above opinion and order was
adopted on ihe
~
day of
__________________,
1993,
by a
vote of
__________.
7/
7
~
a-..
,.
Dorothy M.
G)4in, Clerk
Illinois Po~yutionControl Board
..,
i
U
U h /
L~
