ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
6,
1992
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
R91—9
PETITION OF DM1,
INC. FOR
)
(Site-Specific
SITE—SPECIFIC AIR REGULATIONS
)
Rulemaking)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 215.215
)
ADOPTED
WJLE.
FINAL ORDER.
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 ImpactStudy was not necessary
for the proposal.
On July 11,
1991,
the Board sent this
regulatory proposal to First Notice, without ruling on the merits
of the proposal.
On January 9,
1992,
the Board sent this
proposed rule to Second Notice.
Hearing was held on August 27,
1991,
in Eureka, Woodford
County,
Illinois.
In addition to representatives for the
Petitioner and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”), the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
participated in the hearing.
No other members of the public
attended.
In addition, to the participants at hearings, public
comments were received from the Administrative Code Division of
the Secretary of State’s Office and the Department of Commerce
and Community Affairs.
BACKGROUND
•
DM1 is a farm implement manufacturer located in a largely
rural area used almost exclusively for farming, near Goodfield,
The Board wishes to acknowledge the contributions of attorney
Marie Tipsord who assisted in the preparation of the Opinions and
Orders in this proceeding and who acted as hearing officer.
130—173
2
Woodford County,
Illinois.
(Pet.
42)~
DM1 is employee-owned and
currently employs 289 people.
DM1 asserts that it is Woodford
County’s largest employer.
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.
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:
VON limit,
lb/gal
(less water)
Rolling 30-day
Application
Daily Average
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
2
The Petition will be cited as (Pet.
); comments will be cited
as
(P.C.
X,
p.)
and the Transcript will be cited as
(Tr.)
130—174
3
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).
The Agency objected to the inclusion of the spray coat
application limit because of no relief “is necessary or
requested” for the spray coat.
The spray coat would still be
subject to the allowed emission rates in Section 212.204, which
the spray coat application can meet.
In response to the Agency’s objection, DM1 drafted language
deleting references to the spray coat application limits.
DM1
presented the language in its final comments
(P.C.
3,
Exh.
D)
and
the Agency agreed to the proposed amendment.
(P.C.
5,
p.
5).
The Board adopted the change at Second Notice.
DM1 is requesting relief which is similar to relief
the
Board has granted to John Deere Harvester located in Moline
(see
In the Matter of John Deere Harvester
-
Moline,
R87—1,
(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).
DNI’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 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
factuse 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
130—175
4
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 SCFM 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 VOM
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).
The Agency supports DMI’s request for site specific
rulemaking and states:
The Agency believes that compliance is
economically unreasonable in this case.
Further, the Agency believes that the 8.8 ton
annual increase in volatile organic emission
from DM1 will have minimal environmental
impact in this attainment area.
(P.C.
5,
p.
6)
In addition to deletion of references to spray coat
application limits, DM1 suggested amendment to Section
215.215(e).
DM1 made this suggestion in response to questions
raised at hearing by the Board.
(Tr.
21).
DM1 added a timeframe
to Section 215.215(e)
of 180 days to allow DM1 to achieve
compliance after successful testing of a compliant paint.
(P.C.
3, Exh.
D).
The Board also adopted this language at Second
Notice.
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules did not
suggest any changes to the proposal during Second Notice.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 27 of the Act the Board may adopt
“regulations specific to individual persons or sites”.
In
130—176
5
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.
The Board finds that DM1 has presented
information which indicates that the rule of general
applicability is not economically reasonable for its facility.
Further, the Board finds that DM1 has presented adequate evidence
that the allowance of a higher emission rate will not “contribute
to a violation of ambient air quality standards”.
(P.C.
5,
p.
2).
The~refore,the Board adopts the site-specific rule for DM1,
Inc. plant in Goodfield, Woodford County,
Illinois.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts for Final Notice the following amendments
to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.
The Clerk of the Board is hereby
directed to cause the publication of these amendments in the
Illinois Register and to cause the filing of these amendments
with the Administrative Code Unit of the Secretary of State’s
Office:
Section 215.215 DM1 Emissions Limitations
Notwithstanding the limitation of Section 215.204(1) (3’,, the DMIL
Inc., Goodfield,
Illinois plant shall not cause or permit the
emission of volatile organic material from its existing dip tank
and bake oven
as part of the paint deck operations,
to exceed
a
daily average of 4.2 lb/gal in the dip top coat application tank,
and a
30-day rolling-average of 61 lb/day for the dip tank make-
up solvent addition;
DM11
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 Agency in
a writing delivered
to DM1,
Inc. by certified mail
.~
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 taint,. DM1,
Inc. will conduct production tests of that paint
j~j 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 foregoing
conditions contained in subsections
(a) and
(b), above
130—17 7
6
j~j If DM1, Inc. locates a compliant paint that it can
successfully use in its existing paint deck operations,
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
j~j This Section shall expire within 180 days after final
successful testing of a compliant paint in accordance
with subsection
(d)
above,
or on January
1.
2000,
whichever is earlier,
at which time DM1,
Inc. shall
comply with the provisions that generally apply to VON
emissions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1990 supp.,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1041)
provides for appeal of
final Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, do hereby qertify that the abpy~Opinion and Order was
adopted o~the
~
day of
-~--~~--~—i
,
1992,
by a
vote of
~
.
(/7’
/~
I
9~~/’
~
~.
/~?~~1
Dorothy M.
Qj~nn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
130—178