ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 19,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE PETITION OF JOHN DEERE

HARVESTER-MOLINE

(FORMERLY

)

R87—1

PLOW & PLANTER) WORKS OF

DEERE

& COMPANY

PROPOSED

RULE..

FIRST NOTICE..

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Theodore Meyer):

This matter

is before

the Board on

a petition

for amendment

to

regulations filed by John Deere Harvester—Moline

(formerly

Plow and Planter) Works of Deere

& Company

(herein Deere)

on

December

23,

1986..

Deere’s petition seeks

to add a new section

to

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

215, which imposes organic material emission

standards and limitations.

Specifically, the petition requests

that Deere’s Harvester—Moline Works be exempted

from 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 215..204(k),

which sets

a limit of 3.5—4.8 pounds per gallon

(lb/gal)

on volatile organic material

(VOM)

emissions from the

coating of heavy off—highway vehicles..

Deere asks that its

existing green and yellow flocoating operations be allowed

to

emit up to

a weekly average of 6.2

lb/gal..

A merit hearing

on this proposal was held on October

28,

1987

in Moline,

Illinois..

The Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency)

appeared at the hearing, but did not ask any

questions, present any witnesses,

or state

its position on the

proposal..

On February

4,

1988 the Department

of Energy and

Natural Resources

(DENR) filed

a negative declaration,

setting

forth

its determination that the preparation of

a formal economic

impact study

is not necessary

in this proceeding..

The negative

declaration was based upon DENR’s finding that the cost of making

a formal study is economically unreasonable

in relation

to the

value of the study

to the Board

in determining any adverse

economic impact of the proposed regulation.

On March 17, 1988

the Board received notification that the Economic and Technical

Advisory Committee

(ETAC)

concurred

in DENR’s negative

declaration.

Background

Deere’s Harvester—Moline facility

is located

on

a narrow

strip of land located between

the Mississippi River and Third

Avenue

in Moline,

Rock Island County, Illinois.

Harvester—Moline

employs approximately 1,300 people and produces planters and

hydraulic components

and hardware for equipment manufactured

at

89—37 3

---

—2—

other Deere

facilities..

Most of the product coating

at

Harvester—Moline

is done by flocoating..

This process floods

a

part with paint as

it passes through the painting chamber.

The

excess paint

is then recovered and used again.

Deere states

that

flocoating

is particularly well—suited

to painting the products

manufactured

at Harvester—Moline..

(Transcript of October

28,

1988 hearing

(Tr.)

pp.

10—11,

20—21..)

The three

flocoating lines which are the subject of this

petition are commonly referred

to

as the “green prime”,

“green

topcoat” and “gallon topcoat”

flocoaters..

(Ex.

1..)

35

Ill.

Adm..

Code 215..204(k)(2) provides for

a limit of

3..5 lb/gal

for prime

coating and 4.3 lb/gal

for the top

coat..

Long—term VOM emissions

from these

three lines vary from

5..?

to 5.9 pounds per gallon of

paint

as

applied..

(Tr.

p..

11..)

Based on these figures,

the

actual emissions from Harvester—Moline are

91..7 tons VOM per

year, while allowable emissions are

18.9 tons VOM per year.

This

results

in excess emissions of approximately 73 tons VOM per

year.

This excess

is entirely the result of emissions from the

green and yellow flocoat operations..

(Ex..

1.)

Harvester—Moline

is currently operating under

a variance granted by the Board on

February 19,

1987,

in PCB 86—162.

That variance, which expires

on August

19,

1990,

allows the green prime flocoater to emit up

to 5.8 lb/gal on an annual

average

basis..

The green topcoat

flocoater

is limited

to 5.9 lb/gal

(annual average basis),

while

the yellow topcoat line

is limited to 5.1

lb/gal..

(Ex.

4

at p.

5.)

Rock Island County, where Harvester—Moline

is located,

is

designated

as

an attainment area

for ozone.

The closest non—

attainment areas are Chicago,

160 miles to the east,

and the

St..

Louis

(Illinois)

metropolitan area,

210 miles

to the south.

An

ambient air monitor for

ozone

is located approximately two miles

east of Harvester—Moline

No violation of the ozone standard has

been recorded

at this site since l983~.

Deere

has also provided

monitoring information from Rockford, Elgin,

and Cary,

Illinois,

and from Beloit and Madison, Wisconsin..

Except for one

occurrence at Cary in

1987,

none of these stations has shown any

violation of the

zone standard since at least

1984..

(Tr. pp.

15—

16;

Ex..

5, Attachment

B..)

Proposal

and Justification

Deere asks that the existing green and yellow flocoating

operations

at Harvester—Moline be allowed

to emit up to

a weekly

average of 6.2

lb/gal.

As noted above,

these three flocoating

lines are currently allowed

to emit between 5.1 and 5.9 lb/gal

(annual average basis)

under the

terms of the variance.

At

hearing, John Smith,

a Deere engineer, testified that Deere

is

requesting

a slightly higher limitation of 6.2

lbs/gal

in order

to allow

for the variation in

the amount of painting done from

day to

day..

Mr..

Smith stated that

the major coating

of concern

89—374

---

—3—

is the 5.9 lb/gal coating,

and that

the request for 6.2 lb/gal

seeks

to allow

a

reasonable margin for

the variation

in

production which results

in

a fluctuation

in the amount of

solvent added on

a given

day..

(R.

pp..

19—20.)

A similar

explanation was given

for the request that the limitation

be

based on

a weekly average.

Mr.

Smith pointed

to the day—to—day

variation

in operation of

the flocoating system,

and stated that

even with automatic viscosity control,

there

is not

a uniform

rate of application because of the varying size and surface area

of

the parts

to be painted.

Mr.

Smith further testified that

solvent addition varies

from day

to day, and that some solvent

loss occurs over

the weekend and during

the weekly cleanup..

Finally,

Mr. Smith

noted that the Board granted

a weekly

limitation

to the National Can Corporation

in R85—28.

That

regulation

is found

at

35

Ill. Adm. Code 2l5.206(a)(3)..

(Tr. pp.

18—19.)

Deere believes that its proposed rule

is justified for three

reasons..

First, Deere maintains that the cost of meeting the VOM

standard of 35

Ill..

Adm. Code 215.204(k)

at the Harvester—Moline

facility is

far above what can be considered reasonably available

control technology (RACT).

Deere states that

it has been unable

to develop compliant coatings suitable for these flocoaters,

despite an intensive effort to do

so..

(See generally Tr.

pp.

27—

31;

Ex..

1;

Ex.

8, pp.

Bl—Bl5..)

Deere has evaluated

three

compliance options and contends that the

lowest cost option

is

the elimination of the flocoaters and the installation of

a new

indexing dip system..

The capital

costs

of this system are

estimated at $1,526,700 and annual operating costs are estimated

at

$75,000..

(Tr,

p.

12;

Ex.

8.)

Given that compliance would

serve

to abate the excess

73 tons of VOM emitted annually by

Harvester—Moline, Deere calculates that the annual abatement cost

per ton would be

$5,617..

Deere points out

that in the economic

impact study

(EcIS) prepared by the Illinois Institute of Natural

Resources

in May 1981

for the RACT II proceedings before this

Board,

abatement costs

for surface coatings

for miscellaneous

metal parts

in attainment areas were projected

at $1,032 per

ton..

(Tr..

12)..

During the previous variance proceeding,

both

the Agency and the Board noted that these costs

per ton were

figured using

the

17 percent

interest rate used in the RACT

II

EcIS.

While maintaining that it

is appropriate

to use the same

baseline

in order

to compare the relative cost for Harvester—

Moline

to

the expected norm, at the hearing

in this regulatory

proceeding Deere provided

a calculation of abatement cost using

a

nine percent

interest

rate..

This calculation resulted

in

a cost

of

$4,298 per ton.

(Tr.

p..

13;

Ex.

5, Attachment

A..)

Regardless

of which figure

is used for Harvester—Moline facility, Deere

contends that the cost per ton is clearly beyond RACT costs

envisioned by the Board when establishing these

regulations..

In

sum, Deere insists that although compliance

is technologically

feasible, such compliance

is economically unreasonable, given

the

89—375

---

—4—

small amount of

its VOM emissions.*

The second reason Deere believes that the proposed site—

specific rule is justified

is

that there

is

no requirement for

the imposition of RACT because Harvester—Moline

is located

in an

attainment

area..

Deere points out that the level

of VOM

emissions from Harvester—Moline has been significantly reduced,

from 916

tons in 1980 to 91.7 tons

in

1987..

This is a reduction

of approximately 90 percent..

(Tr.

p..

17;

Ex..

2,

p.

14;

Ex.

3..)

In addition to these reductions,

overall VOM emissions in Rock

Island County have been further reduced because other emitters

have shut down or moved out of

state..

In addition

to the 825

tons of reductions from Harvester—Moline,

two other John Deere

facilities

in the area reduced VOM emissions by 588 tons,

and the

closing of

six other manufacturing facilities reduced emissions

by approximately 918

tons..

(Tr..

pp..

17,

31—36;

Ex.

3..)

Deere

also maintains that the Harvester—Moline facility is no longer

a

“major stationary source”

as that term is defined

for purposes

of

RACT controls under

the Clean Air Act, since the maximum expected

emissions are under

100

tons..

(Tr..

p..

18.)

Third,

Deere contends that the VOM emissions from the

Harvester Moline facility do not cause or contribute to

any

adverse effect upon air quality.

As set forth above, Deere

introduced monitoring data from monitoring stations

in Moline and

other Illinois and Wisconsin cities.

Except for

one occurrence

at Cary,

Illinois

in 1987,

none

of the stations have recorded any

violation of the ozone standard since at least

1984.

(Tr.

p..

16;

Ex.

5, Attachment B.)

Deere reiterates

that the facility

is

located

in an attainment area and

is

160—210 miles away from the

nearest non—attainment areas.

Taken together,

Deere submits

that

this evidence demonstrates that emissions from Harvester—Moline

do not cause or contribute

to any occurrence of the ozone

standard.

Conclusion

The Board finds

that although technologically feasible,

compliance with 35

Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(k)

is not economically

reasonable for Deere’s Harvester—Moline

facility.

The Board

is

also convinced that any environmental

impact of the proposed

regulation will be minimal..

These findings

are based upon the

*Deere has also provided cost estimates for an electrodeposition

dip paint system

(E—coat)

and for

incineration..

The total

first

year cost estimate

(capital expense plus operating cost)

for the

E—coat system is $2,808,700,

and the estimate

for incineration is

$3,900,334.

While the Board believes that the incineration

estimate may be high,

even a more conservative estimate would not

be less expensive than the indexing dip system..

(Ex.

8..)

89—376

---

—5—

relatively small amount of excess VOM emissions from Harvester—

Moline

(73 tons per year)

measured against the cost of installing

either

a new painting system or add—on control technology.

It

should

be pointed out that the

fact that the facility

is located

160—210 miles from the nearest non—attainment areas does not

demonstrate that ozone transport

is not occurring..

The Board

is

appreciative of the difficulties associated with determining

the

potential

for such transport,

however..

The Board also notes that

the Moline—Rock Island area

is economically troubled with at

least six major plant closings

in the 1980s.

Ironically,

these

plant closings have aided Deere’s case

for the proposed

regulation,

since VOM emissions in the area have been drastically

reduced..

Additionally,

the Board notes

that even

if the proposed

rule

is adopted, the Harvester—Moline

facility is expected

to

emit less than 100

tons of VOM per year.

Thus,

the facility

is

apparently not subject to the imposition of RACT because

it is no

longer

a major

stationary source.

For these reasons,

the Board

finds that under

the specific circumstances of this case,

compliance with

35

Ill,.

Adm. Code 2l5..204(k)

is not economically

reasonable

for the existing green and yellow flocoating

operations

at Deere’s Harvester Moline facility.

The Board will

propose the requested regulation

for first notice.

However,

the

regulation will be proposed as

a new subsection

of

35

Ill.

Adm..

Code 215.206

“Exemptions from Emission Limitations”, instead of

as

a new section as suggested by Deere.

This will allow all

exemptions from Subpart

F

“Coating Operations”

to be found

in one

place..

ORDER

The Board hereby directs the Clerk

of

the Board

to cause

publication

in the Illinois Register of the First Notice of the

following amendment:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B:

AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

C:

EMISSION STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 215

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS

AND LIMITATIONS

SUBPART F:

COATING OPERATIONS

Section 215.206

Exemptions from Emission Limitations

a)

The limitations

of

this Subpart shall

not apply

to:

89—377

---

—6—

1)

Coating plants whose emissions of volatile organic

material as limited by the operating permit will

not exceed

22..7 Mg/year

(25 T/year),

in the

absence

of air pollution control

equipment;

or

2)

Sources used exclusively

for chemical

or physical

analysis or determination of product quality and

commercial acceptance provided that:

A)

The operation of

the source

is not an

integral part of

the production process;

B)

The emissions from the source do not exceed

363

kg

(800

ibs)

in any calendar month; and

C)

The exemption is approved

in writing by the

Agency.

3)

Interior body spray coating material for three—

piece steel cans used by National Can Corporation

at its Rockford can manufacturing plant

in Loves

Park,

Illinois, provided that:

A)

The emission of volatile organic material

from the interior body spray coating line

shall not exceed 0.70 kg/l

(5.8 lb/gal)

of

coating material, excluding water,

delivered

to the coating applicator;

and

B)

The emission of volatile organic material

shall comply with the provisions

of Section

215.204 by use of the internal offset

provisions of Section

215..207 computed on

a

weekly weighted average basis..

b)

The limitations of Section

215.204(j)

shall not apply

to the Waukegan, Illinois, facilities

of the Outboard

Marine Corporation,

so

long as the emissions

of

volatile organic material related

to the surface

coating of miscellaneous metal

parts

and products

at

those facilities do not exceed 35

tons per year.

c)

Notwithstanding

the limitations of Section

215.204(k)(2),

the John Deere Harvester—Moline Works

of

Deere

& Company, Moline,

Illinois, shall

not cause

or

permit

the emission of volatile organic material from

its existing green

and yellow flocoating operations

to

exceed

a weekly average of

6.2

lb/gal..

(Source:

Amended at

12

Ill..

Reg

effective

IT

IS SO ORDERED..

89—378

---

—7—

I, Dorothy

M..

Gunn, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

/9t~.

day of

~97~

,

1988, by

a

vote of

7—c’

Dorothy M/ Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

89—379