ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 14,
1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
)
AS 91-2
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD,
)
(Adjusted Standard)
FROM 35
Iii. ADM. CODE 215.204
ERIC L.
LOHRENZ AND SHELDON ZABEL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS.
JULIA GENTILE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by M. Nardulli):
This matter
is before the Board on a petition for an
adjusted standard from the Board’s air regulations at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 2l5.204(a)(l)
filed on February 27,
1991.
Ford Motor
Company
(Ford) also filed a motion for expedited hearing which
the Board granted on February
28,
1991.
The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed
its response along
with a motion to file its response instanter received by the
Board on April
5,
1991.
That motion
is hereby granted and the
response
is accepted.
In addition the Agency filed an amended
response which was received by the Board on April
19,
1991.
A
hearing was held on April
8,
1991
in Chicago,
Illinois.
On May
2,
1991, Ford filed post-hearing comments.
For the reasons set
forth herein, the petition for an adjusted standard
is granted.
BACKGROUND
Ford is seeking an adjusted standard from emissions limits
applicable
to the guide coating process at Ford’s Chicago
Assembly Plant
(the Plant).
The specific provision from which
Ford is seeking an adjusted standard
is 35
Ill. Adm. Code
215.204(a)(l)
(hereinafter referred to as Section 2l5.204(a)(l)),
which
is the emission standard relating
to coating operations at
automobile or light duty truck manufacturing plants
in Cook
county.
Section 2l5.204(a)(l) establishes limits
for emissions
of volatile organic material
(VOM)
of 2.8 lb/gal from prime
surface coating
line.
This Petition involves
a
request requiring
the Adjusted Standard
to
be
submitted as a revision of the State
Implementation Plan
(SIP)
under
the federal Clean Air Act which
would ~.1sorequire a revision to the Federal Implementation
Plan
(FIP).
Thus,
a Board action
to grant
an Adjusted Standard
still requires Ford
to receive atprOval of
the SIP/FIP revision
from the United States E-vironmental Protection Agency
(USEPA).
The Plant employs approximately
2,800 people and was
completed in 1924, making
the Plant
67 years old.
(Exh.K
2,
Pet.
122—209
—2—
7)•1
The Plant
is primarily used for operations involving the
assembly of automobiles, including the coating of automobile
bodies.
The coating of
the automobile bodies involves several
steps including two stages when the guide coat and main enamel
coatings are applied.
(Exh.K 2—3,
Pet.
8).
The Plant,~operating
at capacity, emits
164 tons of VOM per year from its guide
coating operations.
(Pet.
8).
The requested adjusted standard
would apply only
to the guide coating process at the Plant.
(Exh.K 3).
DISCUSSION
The specific adjusted standard language that Ford and the
Agency agreed on at hearing
(Ag. Resp.
2—4, Tr.
7—9)
is:
(A)
For
the Ford Motor Company (“Ford”)
Chicago Assembly Plant
(“Plant”),
the
following adjusted standard shall apply
to the prime surfacer coating operation:
1.81 kilograms of volatile organic
material
(VOM) per liter
(15.1
pounds/gallon)
of coating solids
deposited.
This adjusted standard
is
equivalent
to the generally applicable
standard of 0.34 kilograms of VOM per
liter
(2.8 pounds/gallon) of coating as
applied at each coating applicator
(minus
water and any compounds which are
specifically exempted from the definition
of VOM),
based upon a transfer efficiency
of
30 percent.
(B)
Compliance with
the adjusted standard
shall be based on the daily—weighted
average VOM content
from the entire prime
surfacer coating operation
(all prime
surfacer coat spray booths,
flash—off
areas and bake ovens).
Compliance shall
be demonstrated in accordance with the
“Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate
of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Operations,” December
1988 (EPA—450/3—88—
0/8)
(the
“Protocol”),
applied to prime
surfacer coating operations.
In addition
The Petition
is cited as
(Pet.
);
the transcript will be
cited as
(Tr.
);
the Exhbits will be cited as “Exh
“;
the
Agency’s responses will
be cited as
(Ag. Resp.
)
and
(Ag. Am.
Resp.
)
respectively.
In additio:.,
tne terms VOM and VOC are
used interchangeably.
122—210
—3—
to using the Protocol,
Ford shall
demonstrate compliance through the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements
specified in
40 CFR §52.741(e)(6)(ii),
55
Fed. Reg.
26814, .26872
(June
29,
1990);
provided,
that all reports,
notices or
certifications required by
§52.74l(e)(6)(ii)
to be sent or given to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
also shall be sent or given to the
Agency.
(C)
At least
180 days prior
to initial
compliance date,
Ford shall submit to the
Agency
a detailed proposal specifying the
method for demonstrating compliance with
the Protocol.
The proposal shall
include,
at a minimum,
a comprehensive
plan (including
a
rationale)
for
determining
the transfer efficiency
through the use of
in—plant,
or pilot
testing;
the selection of coatings to be
tested
(for the purpose of determining
transfer efficiency)
including the
rationale ~or coating groupings;
and the
method
for determining
the analytic VOM
content of
as applied coatings and the
formulation solvent content of as—applied
coatings.
Upon approval of the proposal
by the Agency, Ford may proceed with the
compliance demonstration.
(D)
Ford shall submit
to the Agency and,
if
so requested,
to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency the results
of the
initial compliance demonstration, and of
any subsequent demonstration using
a
revised proposal pursuant to subparagraph
(E)
below.
Subject
to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements incorporated
by
reference at subparagraph
(B) above,
Ford shall be deemed to be in compliance
witn the adjusted standard at
subparagraph
(A)
if the results of the
most recent compliance demonstration show
Ford to be
in compliance therewith,
unless and until the Agency or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency should
determine that those results are
unacceptable.
Except as provided in
subparagraph
(E)
below,
Ford shall comply
with the adjusted standard of
subparagraph
(A)
only
in accordance with
the operating parameters and materials
122—2 11
—4—
identified in its most recently approved
proposal
for demonstrating compliance.
(E)
At any time after
the initial compliance
date,
Ford may submit to the Agency a
revised proposal
for demonstrating
compliance with the Protocol.
Ford shall
submit
the revised proposal to the Agency
at least
90 days prior
to the date on
which Ford first intends
to rely on that
proposal as the means
for demonstrating
compliance under
this section.
In
addition
to the information required by
paragraph
(C)
above,
the revised proposal
shall include a description of the facts
supporting
the need for,
or
appropriateness
of, any changes from
Ford’s prior proposal
(for example,
changes
in coating line operations or
composition of materials used).
Upon
approval of the revised proposal, Ford
may proceed with the compliance
demonstration.
Under Section
28.1 of
the Act, the Board may grant an
adjusted standard from the regulation of general applicability.
Since the regulation of general applicability does not specify
the level
of justification required of
a petitioner
for an
adjusted standard of the type requested by Ford in this
proceeding,
Section
28.1(a) applies.
Section 28.1(c)
requires
the petitioner
to adequately prove that:
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 factors 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.
(Section
28.l(c)(1)—(4)
122—2 12
—5—
Ford states that the adjusted standard would enable Ford to
take advantage of increased transfer efficiencyand would make
use
of the Protocol as the means for demonstrating compliance.
(Pet.
8).
Mr. Geoffery Stevens testified for Ford that the term
“transfer efficiency means the :ratio of the paint solids adherinç
to the surface of the automobile to the total amount of solids
sprayed.
.
.
.
As transfer efficiency increases,
less paint must
be sprayed
to achieve the desired film—build thickness on the
automobile body.”
(Exh.K
3).
Mr. Stevens further testified
that:
“Increased transfer efficiency allows the operator
to use
coatings containing more VOC’s per unit volume than contemplated
at the time U.S.EPA’s original standard was derived
in the
1970’s,
without increasing
the loading of VOCs to the
atmosphere.”
(Exh.K
3).
Thus,
as
the transfer efficiency
increases,
less paint
is used in toto to achieve the needed
thickness on the automobile
body.
(Pet.
9).
Ford asserts and the Agency agrees that the adjusted
standard
is equivalent
to the emissions limit
set forth in
Section 215.204.
(Pet.
8 and Ag. Resp.
4).
Ford states
in the
Petition that:
Ford’s petition merely requests that
it be
allowed to determine its compliance with the
generally applicable standard
in a different,
though equivalent manner.
Whereas the present
emissions limit
and the limit proposed
in R9l—
7 are stated in terms of kilograms
(or pounds)
of VOCs per liter
(or gallon)
of coating used,
less water,
Ford’s proposed adjusted standard
is stated in terms of kilograms
(or pounds)
of
VOCs per liter
(or gallon) of solids
applied.
(Pet.
9).
Mr. Stevens
testified that:
Ford’s proposed adjusted standard can be shown
to be mathematically equivalent to the present
limit.
Exhibit
E to the Petition shows the
calculations demonstrating the equivalence
between the present standard of 2.8 pounds
of
VOCs per gallon of coating used,
and Ford’s
proposed adjusted standard of 15.1 pounds of
VOCs per gallon of solids applied, assuming
the average density of the coating mixture
to
be 7.36 pounds per gallon.
The remaining
calculations merely state inherent
mathematical relationships.”
(Exh.K 5)•2
2.
Exhibit
E was originally filed with the Petition; however
a
122—2 13
—6—
In support of Ford’s request for an adjusted standard, Mr.
Stevens states
that:
“No reasonable alternatives to the adjusted
standard exist which would enable Ford to comply with
the
standard of general applicability.”
(Exh.K 6).
Ford indicated
that the current standard was derived using waterborne paints and
included
a measure of equivalency to be used for non—waterborne
paints.
(Exh.K 6).
“This equivalent standard for non—waterborne
coatings came
to be less of an exception and more the rule,
however,
as industry operating experience identified significant
problems with the quality and durability of waterborne coatings”
(Exh.K 6), according
to Mr.
Stevens.
Therefore,
high solid
paints with a higher VOC became industry standard.
(Pet.
10).
Mr.
Stevens further
states that to his knowledge “waterborne
coatings are not used for guide coat applications
by any
manufacturer
in the United States, and such coatings generally
are not compatible for use at United States facilities without
some alterations
to those facilities.”
(Exh.K 6).
In fact,
waterborne paints meeting the generally applicable standard of
2.8 pounds/gallon are
no.t commercially available.
(Pet.
10—
11).
In order
to use waterborne coatings, major changes would
have to be made
to Ford’s facilities and product quality would be
sacrificed.
(Exh.K 7).
Thus, Ford
is unable to meet the
standard of general applicability.
Ford also maintains
that the adjusted standard would be
consistent with Federal law.
Ford states that the FIP
“contemplates exactly the type of adjusted standard requested
herein by Ford,
and indeed the FIP requires that Ford seek
its
alternative limit through a SIP or FIP revision.”
(Pet.
13).
Ford further points out that other states are beginning to
recognize equivalence between VOC emissions limits expressed in
units of pounds of VOCs per gallon of coating used and one
expressed
in units of pounds of VOC5 per gallon of solids
applied.
(Pet.
14).
Three states have either already adopted
such
a standard or have proposed the standard for adoption
(Missouri
(final), Ohio
(final), and Michigan
(proposed)).
(Pet.
14).
The Agency stated
in its response
that:
“The Agency is
satisfied with the information provided by the Petitioner
.
.
with regards
to the “Level of Justification”,
“Description of the
Nature of the Petitioner’s Activity”,
and the “Description of
Efforts which would be Necessary for Petitioner to Comply with
Standard of General Applicability”.
(Ag. Resp..
1—2).
Further,
the Agency agrees
that the adjusted standard is consistent with
applicable federal law.
revised Exhibit
E was presented and accepted into the Record at
hearing.
122—214
—7—
Specifically,
the Agency states in
its response that
it
“recognizes the equivalence between the 2.8 pounds of VOM per
gallon of coating materials
(minus water and non—VOM organic
compounds)
delivered to the coating applicator,
based on a
transfer efficiencyof 30 percent and a fixed density of 7.36 lb
VOM/gal, and a limitation of
15.1 pQunds of VOM per gallon of
solids applied.”
(Ag. Resp.
4).
Therefore,
the Agency states
that the adjusted standard “should not result
in increased VOM
emissions.”
(Ag. Resp.
4).
Thus1 the Agency believes that the
adjusted standard will have no further impact on the
environment.
(Ag. Resp.
4).
Therefore,
the Agency recommends
that the adjusted standard be granted.
The Agency in
its
response filed April
4,
1991,
stated a
contingency
to its
recommendation.
That contingency was the
Agency’s approval of the proposal discussed in Section
5(C) of
the adjusted standard language.
At hearing on April
8,
1991,
the
Agency stated that it had not received the proposal until April
5,
1991 and therefore was unable
to comment on whether
or not the
contingency could be removed from its recommendation.
(Tr.
12).
The Hearing Officer directed the Agency
to file an amended
response
to be received by the Board by April
21,
1991.
(Tr.
40).
On April
18,
1991,
the Board received the amended response.
The amended response stated that:
“After preliminary review
of the proposal,
the Agency
is now willing to treat the adoption
of the adjusted standard and the approval of the proposal as two
separate
issues.”
(Ag. Am. Resp.
1).
Therefore,
the Agency
removed the contingency regarding approval of the proposal from
the recommendation that the adjusted standard be granted.
Ford has indicated,
and the Agency agrees,
that the factors
relating to Ford are substantially different from the factors
considered by the Board when adopting Section 215.204.
Specifically,
the use of waterborne paints believed to be
applicable at the time of adoption of the standard of
general
applicability
is not used by any U.S. or
European manufacturer
for guide coat applications;
rather,
use of
relatively higher VOC
paints has become
the industry standard
(Pet.
p.
10).
Further~
Ford has stated that using waterborne paints
is cost prohibitive
and would result in lowering the quality of product Ford
produces.
Thus,
the Board finds
that Ford has met its burden of
proof with regards
•to Section 28.1(c)(1)
of the Act.
Ford has also presented evidence which indicates that the
adjusted s.tandard is equivalent
to the current standard.
The
Agency agrees that the adjusted standard
is equivalent.
A
standard which is equivalent would mean that the environmental
and health risks are
no greater than those considered by the
Board when adopting Section 215.204.
Therefore,
the Board finds
that Ford has met
its burden
of
proof
with
regards
to
Section
28.l(c)(3)
of
the Act.
Lastly,
Ford will be using the USEPA’s own Protocol
to
122—2 15
—8—
establish compliance with the adjusted standard.
Three states
already recognize the adjusted standard in their own air
regulations.
Both Ford and the Agency agree that the adjusted
standard is consistent with the federal Clean Air Act.
Therefore
the Board
finds that Ford presented adequate proof
in accordance
with regards to Section 28.l(c)(4)
of the Act.
Given
the evidence presented by Ford which establishes the
necessity for an adjusted standard, pursuant
to Sections
28.l(c)(l),
(3) and
(4), the Board further finds that Ford has
justified the need for an adjusted standard pursuant to
subsection
(2)(c).
Therefore,
the Board grants Ford’s Petition
for an Adjusted Standard from Section 215.204 of the Board’s
regulations pursuant
to the agreed upon conditions.
However,
based on the earlier discussion on the equivalence between the
2.8
lb VOM/gal of
coating and the 15.1 lb VOM/gal of solids
applied,
the Board includes an addition in subsection
(A)
of
the
Adjusted Standard for Ford.
This addition is a clarification
noting that
the equivalence calculation
is applicable only when
carried out on the basis of
a 30
transfer efficiency and a VOM
density of 7.36
lb VOM/gal.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law
it this matter.
ORDER
The Board hereby grants
to Ford Motor Company,
for its
Chicago Assembly Plant, an adjusted standard from
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 215.204.
The terms and conditions of the adjusted standard
are as follows:
(A)
For the Ford Motor Company
(“Ford”)
Chicago Assembly Plant
(“Plant”),
the
following adjusted standard shall apply
to the prire surfacer
coating operation:
1.81 kilograms of volatile organic
material
(VOM)
per liter
(15.1
pounds/gallon)
of coating solids
deposited.
This adjusted standard
is
equivalent
to the generally applicable
standard of
0.34 kilograms of VOM per
liter
(2.8 pounds/gallon) of coating as
applied at each coating applicator
(minus
water and any compounds which are
specifically exempted from the definition
of VOM),
based upon a transfer efficiency
of
30 percent and a VOM density of 7.36
lb VOM/gal.
(B)
Compliance with the adjusted standard
shall be based on the daily—weighted
average VOM content from the entire prime
surfacer coating operation
(all prime
122—216
—9—
surfacer coat spray booths,
flash—off
areas and bake ovens).
Compliance shall
be demonstrated
in accordance with the
“Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate
of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Operations,” December 1988 (EPA—450/3—88—
0/8)
(the
“Protocol”), applied to prime
surfacer coating operations.
In addition
to using the Protocol, Ford shall
demonstrate compliance through the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements
specified in
40 CFR §52.74l(e)(6)(ii),
55
Fed.
Reg.
26814,
26872
(June
29,
1990);
provided,
that all reports, notices
or
certifications required by
§52.74l(e)(6)(ii) to be sent or given to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
also shall be sent or given to the
Agency.
(C)
At least
180 days prior
to initial
compliance date,
Ford shall submit
to the
Agency a detailed proposal specifying the
method for demonstrating compliance with
the Protocol.
The proposal shall
include, at a minimum,
a comprehensive
plan (including a rationale)
for
determining the transfer efficiency
through the use of in—plant,
or
pilot
testing;
the selection of coatings
to
be
tested (for the purpose of determining
transfer efficiency)
including the
rationale for coating groupings; and the
method for determining the analytic VOM
content of as applied coatings and the
formulation solvent content of as—applied
coatings.
Upon approval of the proposal
by the Agency,
Ford may proceed with the
compliance demonstration.
(D)
Ford shall submit
to the Agency and,
if
so requested,
to the U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency the results
of the
initial compliance demonstration, and of
any subsequent demonstration using
a
revised proposal pursuant to subparagraph
(E)
below.
Subject
to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements incorporated
by
reference at subparagraph
(B) above,
Ford shall
be deemed to be
in compliance
with
the
adjusted
standard
at
subparagraph
(A)
if the results of the
most
recent compliance demonstration show
122—2 17
—10—
Ford
to be
in compliance
therewith,
unless and until
the Agency or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency should
determine that those results are
unacceptable.
Except
as provided in
subparagraph
(E)
below, Ford shall comply
with the adjusted standard of
subparagraph
(A) only
in accordance with
the operating parameters and materials
identified
in its most recently approved
proposal
for demonstrating compliance.
(E)
At any time after the initial compliance
date,
Ford may submit to the Agency a
revised proposal for demonstrating
compliance with the Protocol.
Ford shall
submit the revised proposal
to the Agency
at least
90 days prior
to the date on
which Ford first
intends to rely on that
proposal
as the means
for demonstrating
compliance under
this section.
In
addition
to the information required by
paragraph
(C) above,
the revised proposal
shall
include a description of the facts
supporting
the need for,
or
appropriateness of,
any changes from
Ford’s prior proposal (for example,
changes
in coating line operations or
composition of materials used).
Upon
approval
of the revised proposal, Ford
may proceed with the compliance
demonstration.
Section
41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Re.
Stat.
1989 ch lll~par.
1041, provides for appeal of fina Orders
of the Board within
35 days.
The Rules of
the Supreme Court of
Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT ES 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
/~ZThay of
___________________
,
1991,
by
a
vote of
‘/—p
Dorothy M.
nn, Clerk
Illinois P0 lution Control Board
122—2 18
