ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 4, 1993
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
JOINT PETITION OF DOUGLAS FURNITURE
)
OF CALIFORNIA, and THE ILLINOIS
)
AS 93-3
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
(Adjusted Standard)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 218.204
)
ROY L. BERNSTEIN, GOTTLIEB
AND
SCHWARTZ, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER,
DOUGLAS FURNITURE OF CALIFORNIA;
SHARON N. DAVIS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on a petition for
adjusted standard filed by Douglas Furniture of California
(Douglas Furniture) on March 9,
1993,
and joined by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) on August 5,
1993.
•
Joint petitioners request an adjusted standard from the air
emission control requirement at 35 Ill. Adm.-Code 218.204 as that
requirement would otherwise apply to the touch-up coating
operations of the metal furniture coating line at Douglas
Furniture’s facility located in Bedford Park,
Illinois.
Section
‘218.204 provides in pertinent part that no owner or operator of a
metal furniture coating line shall apply at any time any coating
in which the volatile organic material
(VON) content exceeds an
emission limit of 3.0 lb/gal
(3.6 kg/L).
The Board’s resppnsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.).
The
Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement the
environmental control standards applicable in the State of
Illinois”1 and to “grant
***
an adjusted standard for persons who
can justify such an adjustment”2.
More generally, the Board’s
responsibility in this matter is based on the system of checks
and balances integral to Illinois environmental governance: the
Board
is charged with the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions, and the Agency is responsible for carrying out the
principal administrative duties.
Based upon the record before it and upon review of the
factors involved in the consideration of adjusted standards, the
Act at Section 5(b).
2
Act at Section 28.1(a).
2
Board finds that the joint petitioners have demonstrated that
grant of an adjusted standard in the instant matter is warranted.
The adjusted standard accordingly will be granted.
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
PROCEDURE
The
Act
at Section 28.1 provides that a petitioner may
request,
and
the
Board
may
impose,
an
environmental
standard
that
is:
(a)
applicable solely to the petitioner,
and
(b) different
from the standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner as
the consequence of the operation of a rule of general
applicability.
Such a standard is called an adjusted standard.
The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard
proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the Act and within the
Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code Part 106.
Where, as here, the regulation of general applicability does
not specify a level of justification required for a petitioner to
qualify for an adjusted standard,
the Act at Section 28.1(c)
specifies four demonstrations that must be made by a successful
petitioner:
1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially
and significantly different from the factors relied
upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation
applicable to that petitioner;
2)
The existence of those factor justifies an adjusted
standard;
3)
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; and
4)
The adjusted standard is consistent with any
applicable federal law.
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
This
matter
in
based
on
mandates of the Clean Air Act
designed
to
reduce
ozone
in
the
lower
atmosphere
through
the
control of VOM emissions.
Among these mandates is the required
application of reasonably available control technology
(RACT)3
to
certain VON emission sources, such as operated by Douglas
Furniture.
The Illinois regulations that address the application
~
RACT regulations developed for the Chicago ozone non—
attainment area occur at 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 218.
3
of RACT within the Chicago area,
and which are the subject of the
instant petition, are found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.
Among the Chicago area RACT regulations are rules applicable
to coating operations, as found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.Subpart
F.
The coating operation regulation at issue is at Section
218.204(g)
Douglas Furniture filed the instant petition on March 9,
1993.
By order of April 22,
1993 the Board accepted the petition
for hearing.
In the same order the Board directed Douglas
Furniture to address certain matters pertaining to the past and
future search for compliant coatings.
Douglas Furniture originally filed as sole petitioner in
this matter.
However, on August
3,
1993 the Agency filed a
motion,
in which Douglas Furniture concurred, requesting that it
be joined as a petitioner.
That motion was granted by Board
order
of August 5,
1993.
The presence of the Agency as joint
petitioner is additionally reflected in the caption of today’s
opinion .and order.
Hearing was held in Bedford Park on August
9,
1993 before
hearing officer Todd Parkhurst.
Douglas Furniture presented
witnesses Dr. Kenneth Yen Fong and Mr. Joseph Prestia.
No
members of the public attended the hearing.
FACILITY/OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION
Douglas Furniture’s facility is located in Bedford Park,
Cook County,
Illinois.
The facility is engaged in the
manufacture of •both wood and metal furniture.
Approximately 450
workers are employed at the facility.
The Bedford Park facility has a number of permitted VON
emission sources.
Douglas Furniture observes that the aggregate
allowable VON emissions for the Bedford Park facility in 1992
were approximately 110 tons,
whereas actual emissions were 52.7
tons.
(Petition at p.
9.)
VON emission sources include a
permitted metal furniture coating operation,
a permitted wood
furniture coating line, a vacuum barrel distillation system used
to reclaim wash solvents, and various miscellaneous sources that
are collectively permitted.
(Petition at p.
5.)
Only the metal
furniture operation is the subject of the instant adjusted
standard.
The metal furniture operation consists of
a two—stage metal
wash tunnel, two—turbine-driven electrostatic disk spraybooths, a
hand-operated spraybooth, baking oven,
and cooling-drying
tunnel/quality control station.
(u.)
The principal coatings
are applied in the “front portion” spraybooths; touch-up coatings
are applied in the cooling-drying tunnel/quality control
4
operation4.
Touch—up coatings constitute approximately three
percent of the coatings used in the metal coating operation.
(Tr. at 44.)
Only the touch-up coatings are the subject of the
instant adjusted standard.
The purpose of the touch-up operation is to coat small areas
of product that escaped coating in the spraybooth operation,
thereby maintaining overall coating quality and saving the entire
part from having to go back through “front portion” coating
operation.
(Tr. at 57.)
The touch-up coatings must have a high—
gloss enamel finish that matches the “front portion” baked—on
coatings.
(Tr.
at 64.)
The coatings also must be available in
the colors matching the primary coatings.
(Tr. at 71.)
At the time the petition in this matter was filed, Douglas
Furniture applied its touch-up coatings using coatings contained
in aerosol spray cans.
(Tr. at 6.)
Douglas Furniture now mostly
uses a cup gun application system
(Tr. at 71-72), which produces
lower VON emissions both because the cup gun uses an air rather
than a VOM propellent and because the coatings may be applied
more accurately and hence in lesser volume
(Tr. at 50).
Nevertheless, Douglas Furniture is still not able to obtain or
use touch-up coatings that meet the 3.0 lb/gal VON limit.
Emissions from the touch-up operation in excess of those
that would be produced with use of 3.0 lb/gal coatings are
approximately 924 pounds per year, or 3.5 pounds per day.
(Petition at p.
9; Tr. at 41.)
These excess emissions are not
expected to vary significantly year-to-year.
(Tr. at 53.)
Douglas Furniture contends that the touch—up coating
operation at its Bedford Park facility presents several
differences from the factors considered by the Board in adopting
the rule of general applicability.
Among these are the
troublesome properties of high-solids coatings applied to
intricate metal furniture components,
and the special
requirements associated with touch-up coatings.
(Petition at p.
14—16.)
~ There is apparently dispute between the joint petitioners
as to whether the metal furniture coating operation comprises one
or two coatings lines for the purposes of compliance with Section
218.205.
Douglas Furniture maintains that the operation
constitutes a single coating line (Petition at 3,
9; Tr. at 9);
the Agency apparently contends that the touch-up operation
constitutes a coating line distinct from that of the “front
portion” operations
(Tr. at 8).
The joint petitioners do not
request that the Board resolve this dispute, and the Board does
not today address it.
5
COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
Douglas Furniture has undertaken various efforts to reduce
VON emissions from the metal furniture operation,
including both
the “front portion” operation and the touch—up operation.
The
“front portion” operation is now in full compliance with the VOM
limitations; maximum VON contents for coatings used there range
from 2.2 to 2.9 lb/gal
(Tr. at 44).
Efforts to reduce VON emissions from the touch—up operation
have included reducing the need for touch-up by improving the
quality of the “front portion” coating application.
(Tr. at 33,
57—70.)
Efforts to reduce VOM emissions from the touch—up operation
have also included the aforementioned change from coating using
canned aerosol sprays to a cup gun operation.
VOM content of the
aerosol sprays were 5.8 lbs/gal; VOM content of the cup gun
coatings are between 4.6 and 5.0 lbs/gal.
(Tr. at 43—44.)
The
next effect of the lower VOM content and the use of lesser
volumes of coatings with the cup gun has caused the overall VON
emissions from the touch-up operation to decrease by 75 percent.
(Tr. at 43.)
Douglas Furniture has also contacted various coating
manufacturers in search of suitable compliant coatings.
(Tr. at
34—36.).
Based on this survey, Douglas Furniture observes that
it is unaware of any suitable touch-up coatings that meet the 3.0
lb/gal
limit.
(Petition at p.
10—11.
Douglas Furniture has further conducted a study of
controlling touch—up operation emissions through the use of add-
on controls.
To control the approximately one—ton of excess
emissions from the touch-up operation was estimated to require
controls costing approximately $250,000 to $350,000 and having an
annual operation cost of $80,000 to $150,000.
(Petition at p.
12.)
•
Based on its various compliance analyses and efforts,
Douglas Furniture contends that there is no reasonably available
or economically feasible method to comply with the VOM
limitations of Section 218.204(g).
Douglas Furniture further
contends, and the Agency agrees, that the standard as proposed
within the instant adjusted standard constitutes the true RACT
for the Douglas Furniture touch—up coating operation.
For its part,
the Agency also adds that it believes that
Douglas Furniture has undertaken substantial efforts to find
feasible alternatives for its touch-up operations
(Tr. at 86—87),
and that Douglas Furniture in so doing has justified its need for
and the appropriateness of granting the adjusted standard
(Tr. at
18.)
6
HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Joint petitioners contend that grant of the requested
adjusted standard would not produce health or environmental
effects any more adverse than those considered by the Board in
adopting the 3.0 lb/gal rule of general applicability.
(Tr. at
10.)
The health and environmental effects considered in the
general rule are those proposed for compliance with RACT; since
the adjusted standard is RACT, the environmental consequences of
the adjusted standard are the same as those considered for the
rule of general applicability.
Joint petitioners further contend that any impact of the
difference between the general rule and the adjusted standard is
de minimis, and can have little or no adverse environmental
impact.
Douglas Furniture observes
(Petition at p.
14), and the
Agency concurs
(Tr. at 18), that the VON emissions at issue are
very small with respect to the VON loadings in the Chicago area
and even in the Bedford Park and surrounding heavily
industrialized southwest Chicago area.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
Joint petitioners observe their request for a facility-
specific SIP/FIP revision is clearly contemplated by the federal
rules at 40 CFR 52.741(e).
(Petition at
p.
17.)
CONDITIONS
Joint petitioners request that the grant of adjusted
standard be subject to certain conditions relating to the
quantity of emissions and coating use.
(Petition at p.
12-13;
Tr.
at 19.)
Those conditions are attached to today’s grant of
adjusted standard as conditions
(1)—(3).
The Board intends that
these conditions be substantively the same as the conditions
identified at hearing by the joint petitioners.
The Board has also added further conditions.
Included in
paragraph
2 of the Board’s “more information” order of April 22,
1993, was the following
request:
...the Board requests comments on the inclusion of
additional language in the proposed adjusted standard that
would provide
a mechanism and timetable for contacting paint
vendors, paint testing, notification of the Agency and the
Board of the test results, and the expiration of the
adjusted standard if a compliant paint is found.
(see e.g.
In the Matter of: Petition of DM1,
Inc. for Site—SDecifIc
Air Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 215.215
(February 6,
1992),
R91—9 at 5—6.)
7
At hearing Douglas Furniture accepted the Q~ approach,
indicating that it was willing to continue its efforts to find a
compliant coating, and to report to the Agency every six months.
(Tr. at 13,
77-78,
84.)
Accordingly, conditions (4)—(8) are
included as conditions to the grant of adjusted standard.
Noteworthy among these last conditions is the provision in
Condition
(8) that the adjusted standard expires when Douglas
Furniture no longer needs an alternative RACT.
It is the
Agency’s hope that.a compliant coating(s) will be found and that
therefore the need for an alternative RACT will in fact be
removed.
(Tr. at 18.)
The Board shares this hope.
The Board
also notes that condition
(8) provides that the adjusted standard
expires two years after Douglas Furniture converts its touch—up
operation to a compliant coating, rather than expiring
concurrently with the fulfillment of Condition (7).
This is to
allow Douglas Furniture time to fully field-test the compliant
touch—up coating in the marketplace.
If problems arise, Douglas
Furniture can report these to the Agency, without returning to
the Board for another adjusted standard, which would otherwise be
necessary.
Finally, the Board notes that joint petitioners at several
places in the hearing record indicate support of a proposal to
“include the adjusted standard within Section 218.204”.
(Tr. at
14,
19,
88.)
An adjusted standard proceeding~does not provide of
bringing about a change in the text of a rule; that can only be
done in a rulemaking proceeding.
The Board believes that the
joint petitioners’ principal intent is to assure that it is only
the VOM limitation at 218.204(g)
for which adjusted standard is
being given; other aspects of RACT,
such as test methodologies
and record-keeping would still apply.
The Board intends
likewise, and accordingly has given phrase to today’s order that
makes clear that only the emission limitation at 218.204(g). is
subject to the standard adjustment.
CONCLUSION
Based upon its consideration of the record presented in this
action, the Board finds that the joint petitioners have provided
the justification required pursuant to Section 28.1of the Act
for an adjusted standard to be granted with conditions.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
A.
Douglas Furniture of California
(Douglas Furniture)
is
hereby granted an adjusted standard applicable to its facility
located in Bedford Park,
Illinois.
Pursuant to this grant of
8
adjusted standard, the limitations of
35 Ill. Adm. Code
218.204(g)
notwithstanding, Douglas Furniture shall comply
instead with the following standards for the touch-up coating
operation applied in the cooling tunnel of the metal furniture
coating line:
(1)
Volatile organic material emissions for any touch—up coating
may not exceed 6.0 lb/gal
(0.72 kg/L)
as delivered to the
coating applicator, excluding water and any compounds
specifically exempted from the definition of volatile
organic material by Board regulation.
(2)
Total coating use of touch-up coatings may not exceed 70
gal/month and may not exceed 650 gal/year based on a 12—
month rolling average.
(3)
Total volatile organic material emissions from the touch—up
coating operation may not exceed 0.2 ton/month and may not
exceed 2.0 ton/year based on a 12—month rolling average.
B.
The following conditions also apply to this grant of
adjusted
standard:
(4)
Douglas Furniture shall contact at least three
(3) coating
vendors each year in a continuing search for a compliant
coating that can be used in its touch-up coating operation,
•
including any coating vendors suggested by the Agency in
•
writing delivered to Douglas Furniture by certified mail.
(5)
If any coating vendor provides Douglas Furniture with
laboratory test results that demonstrate that Douglas
Furniture may be able to use the vendor’s coating in its
touch—up operations as
a substitute for the existing
coating,
Douglas Furniture shall conduct production tests on
that coating.
(6)
Douglas Furniture shall submit a report to the Agency on or
before each six—month anniversary of this grant of adjusted
standard, during the full time when this adjusted standard
is in effect, that includes a summary of Douglas Furniture’s
activities with respect to conditions
(4) through 7,
above.
(7)
If Douglas furniture locates a compliant coating that it can
successfully use in its existing touch—up coating operation,
and the net annual expense of using the compliant coating is
not more than ten percent greater than the net annual
expense incurred in the existing coating process, Douglas
Furniture shall convert its present touch—up operation to
the use of the compliant coating within 180 days after the
final successful testing of such coating.
9
(8)
This adjusted standard shall expile two years after
conversion to the touch-up coating complying with 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 218.204(g).
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
establish filing requirements.
(See also 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif
at the abov
pinion and order was
adopted on the
_______
day of
_________________,
1993, by a
vote of
________
~
~.
Dorothy N. ~(inn,Clerk
Illinois P~4lutionControl Board