ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 12,

1984

IN RE:

CORRECTION OF

)

35

ILL,

ADM.

CODE

)

R83~36

215.204(a)(1)

)

PROPOSED_RULE,

FIRST NOTICE

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B. Forcade):

On December

2,

1983,

Ford

Motor Company (‘~Ford0)filed a

petition, with over 200

supporting signatures, seeking to have

the Board amend 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 215.204(a)(1),

That regulation

limits volatile organic

material emissions from coatings lines at

automobile or light duty

truck manufacturing plants

in Cook

County.

This regulation,

which was formerly Rule 205

(n)(1)(A)

of Chapter 2:

Air

Pollution, was adopted by the Board on August

23,

1979,

in proceeding

R78—3,4.

On December

23,

1983, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Agency~)filed

a motion to dismiss this rulemaking

claiming that the Board had

retained jurisdiction in R78—3,4, and

that the relief

Ford

was requesting could be addressed with a

clarifying statement in

the prior rulemaking.

On January

3,

1984,

Ford responded to

the Agency’s motion to dismiss, stating

in essence, that

the mechanism for the change (clarifying statement

in R78~3,4,or new

regulation) was not important so long as the

substance of the

requested change was properly evaluated by this

Board.

The

Board, by Order of October

18, 1979,

vacated

its decision

to retain jurisdiction in

R78~3,4.

Since the Board no longer has

jurisdiction in

R78~3,4,the Agency’s motion to dismiss is denied,

On

March

16, 1984, Ford moved to schedule hearings promptly

in this matter,

The Board held two hearings on May 24,

1984; the

morning hearing

was held in Chicago, the afternoon hearing was

held

in

Bolingbrook.

On June 4,

1984, the Department of Energy

and Natural Resources

(“DENR”) made

a

finding that an Economic

Impact Statement was not

necessary in this proceeding.

On July

18,

1984,

the Economic and

Technical Advisory Committee concurred

with DENVs

finding.

The

public comment period was closed on

June

29,

1984, by Hearing Officer

Order.

In a related matter,

Ford filed on August

4, 1983,

a

petition

seeking

in

part a variance

from the same regulation which

it now

petitions to modify.

On April

27,

1984, and May 29,

1984, the

Board granted Ford a variance from

the applicable regulation,

pending final Board action

60-295

---

A brief overview will

simplify the subsequent regulatory

discussion.

in an effort to control the emission

of materials

that may lead to ozone

formation,

the Board

has

adopted

several

regu1ations~

In R78~3,4,35

PCB

246

(August 23,

1979), the

Board

adopted omission limitations that

apply

to,

inter alia,

coating

lines

for automobile manufacturers and

requi~~T~sta1lation

of

reasonab’y available

control technology

(‘~RACT~).

Those limitations

are

expressed in pounds

of volatile organic material per gallon

of coating, excluding

water,

Water

is

excluded because

it is not

a

‘TOM.

In developing

those limitations,

the

Board relied in part

on concepts, data, and

assumptions

contained

in

United

States

Environmental Protection

Act

publications

called

control

technique

guidelines Y~CTGns~)*,

One

such

concept

is

transfer

efficiency

which is

the

ratio of

the

amount

of

coating

solids

transferred

onto

the

surface of a

part

or

product

to

the

total

amount

of

coating solids used.

Ford

and

the

Agency

assert

that

the

original

CTG presumed

a

transfer

efficiency

of

40

and

that

this

Board

relied on that

transfer efficiency in establishing the relevant

regulation.

Ford and

the Agency

further assert that a 40

transfer

efficiency is incorrect,

that the correct transfer efficiency is

30,

and that USEPA has

admitted the error,

Ford has petitioned

for

thi& regulatory

change to bring the Board’s regulation into

conformity with actual

practice in the industry and existing

USEPA po1icy~

The existing regulation

provides

as follows:

Section

215~204

Emission

Limitations

for

Manufacturing

Plants

No owner or operator

of

a

coating

line shall cause or allow

the emission of volatile organic material to

exceed the

following limitations

on coating materials,

excluding water,

delivered to the coating

applicator:

a) Automobile or

Light

Duty

Truck

Manufacturing

Plants

1)

in Cook County

kg/l

(lb/gal)

Prime coat

0.14

Prime surfacer coat

0.34

(2.8)

(Board

Note:

The prime surfacer coat limitation

shall

not apply if by December 31, 1982 a

limitation of

0.38 kg/l

(3.2 lb/gal)

is achieved

and the

prime surfacer coat is applied with a

transfer

efficiency of not less than 55 percent.)

Top coat

0.34

(2.8)

~

~

at issue

here is USEPA, OAQPS Guidelines,

Control of

Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing

Stationary Sources

—Volume II:

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,

Automobiles,

And

Light—Duty Trucks at

iv and vii

(EPA—450/2

77—009)

(OAQPS No,

1.2—073)

May 1977)

60-298

---

3

(Board Note:

The limitation shall not

apply

if

by

December 31,

1985

a limitation of

0.43 kg/i

(3.6 ib/

gal)

is achieved and the top coat

is applied with a

transfer efficiency of not less than 65.)

Final

repair

coat

0.58

(4,8)

(Board Note:

The

limitation

shall

not

apply

until December

31,

1985.)

It appears that the Ford

plant

in

Chicago

is

the

only

facility

sub-~ectto

:35 IiI~Adm. Code 215.204(a)(1),

At

the

Ford

facility

vehicle bodies first

receive

a

prime

coat

by

an

electrocoat

painting

prOCeSS~

The prime coating

operation

is

not

at

issue

here.

After

baking the prime coated

vehicles

are

conveyed

to

the

prime

surfacer

operation and then

to

the

top

coat

operation.

These

two

operations

are at issue here

The prime surfacer coat is applied to the vehicles using hand

held conventional

(non—electrostatic) and high voltage automatic

application (spray)

equipment.

This

coating

improves

surface

appearance and corrosion protection.

The vehicle is

then conveyed

to a bake oven.

After the oven the vehicle is conveyed to the

topcoat line where enamel is applied in a spray booth by hand held

conventional and electrostatic spray guns.

A second color may be

added later

for tutone

vehicles

(Stip.

Facts,

~L6—13).

Obviously,

if more of the sprayed

solids

remain

on

the

vehicle

(a higher transfer efficiency),

then

less

material

is

needed

per

vehicle~

Thus,

the VOM content of the material and the transfer

efficiency are key variables in determining overall VOM emissions.

For the limitation of concern here, prime surfacer coat and

top coat, it is obvious

that

the

Board

placed

heavy

reliance

on the CTG and adopted the CTG limitation of 2.8 lbs VOM/gallon

(R78—3,

4,

August

23,

1979,

35 PCB at

255,

258).

However,

the

Board did not specifically articulate the transfer efficiency

that applied to that limitation in either the regulation or the

op:Lnion. Likewise, the USEPA CTG does

not

articulate

a

specific

transfer efficiency for the

2.8

lbs

VOM/gallon

limitation.

In

1979, USEPA circulated

a

memorandum

stating

some

past

confusion regarding the appropriate transfer efficiency and

concluded that a 30

transfer efficiency was appropriate for 2.8

lbs VOM/gallon (Stip. Facts,

Ex.

6).

A 1981 policy statement

by USEPA in the Federal Register stated that 30

transfer

efficiency was acceptable for 2.8 lbs VOM/gallon

(Stip.

Facts,

Ex,

8).

Also,

40 CFR

60.393

(Performance

Tests

and

Compliance

Provisions) provides for

a

transfer

efficiency

of

30

(Stip.

Facts,

Ex,

7).

These determinations by USEPA

were

based

on

extensive review of what transfer efficiencies were in fact

achievable for the automotive industry.

60-297

---

4

Whatever confusion or mistakes of fact that may have

occurred in the past, the Board may now rely on the

documentation

in the record that 30

is the appropriate transfer efficiency for

the

2.8 lbs VOM/gallon limitation.

Accordingly, the

Board

will

modify the regulation to reflect the appropriate

transfer

efficiency.

ORDER

35 111, Adm. Code 2l5,204(a)(l)

is amended as follows:

Section 215.204

Emission Limitations for

Manufacturing Plants

No owner or operator of a coating line shall cause

or allow the emission of volatile organic material

to exceed the following limitations on coating

materials, excluding water, delivered to the

coating app?icator:

a) Automobile or Light Duty Truck Manufacturing

Plants

I)

In Cook County

kg/i

((lb/gal)

Prime coat

0.14

(1.2)

Prime surfacer coat

0.34

(2.8)

~

~

e~-~

~

(Board Note:

The prime surfacer coat limitation

is based u on a transfer efficienc

of 30

ercent,

~

until December 31~1982.)

Top coat

0.34

(2.8)

~

~

~

~

-~S-pefeen~.)

(Board Note:

The limitation

is based u

n a

~

limitation shall

not

apply

until

December

31,

1985.)

60-298

---

5

Final repair coat

0.58

(4.8)

(Board Note:

The limitation shall not apply

until December 31, 1985

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

2l5.204(a)(1)

is

directed

to

First

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted

on

the

/2

.44

day of

~

,

1984 by a

vote

of

~

~.

illinoi(Pollution Control Board