ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
25, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS
TO
35 ILL.
)
R86—36
ADM.
CODE 215.204,
215.211,
AND 215.212:
HEAVY OFF—HIGHWAY
VEHICLE PRODUCTS.
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(By R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon proposals
from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
and General
Motors Corporation,
Electro—Motive Division
(“EMD”)
to amend
certain portions of
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 215 pertaining
to emissions
of volatile organic materials
(“VOM”)
from facilities
manufacturing heavy off—highway vehicle
(“HOHV”) products.
Today
the Board adopts the amendments.
BACKGROUND
The origin of
this proceeding
is rooted
in the requirements
of the Clean Air Act
(“CAA”)
(42 TJ.S.C.A.
Section 7401 et.
seq.).
Pursuant to Section
109 of
the CAA,
the USEPA adopted
a
National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
(“NAAQS”)
for ozone.
Attainment of this NAAQS was to have been demonstrated
for all
areas of
the
State by December
31,
1982, according
to the
provisions of Section l72(a)(1)
of
the CAA.
However, Illinois
was unable
to make such
a demonstration.
It therefore applied
for and received
an extension of this deadline until December 31,
1987
(pursuant to the provisions
of Section 172(a)(2) of the
CAA).
As
a prerequisite
to obtaining this extension,
Illinois
was required
in the interim
to include
in its State
Implementation Plan
(“SIP”)
for areas which are nonattainment for
ozone “such
reduction
in emissions
from existing sources
in the
area
as may be obtained through the adoption,
at
a minimum,
of
reasonably available control technology”
(Section l72(b)(3)
of
CAA).
“Reasonably available control technology”
(“RACT”)
is not
defined
in the CAA.
However,
USEPA has promulgated industry—
specific “Control Technology Guidelines”
(“CTGs”)
that are
intended
to describe RACT
for
a given industry and assist states
in determining PACT.
USEPA has published three groups of CTGs.
On December
30,
1982,
In the Matter
of RACT
II Rules, R80—5,
the Board adopted rules intended
to satisfy the RACT requirements
83—189
—2--
as specified
in the second group of CTGs.1
However, on July 11,
1985,
the USEPA
at
50 Fed.
Reg.
28224 proposed
to disapprove
certain of the rules adopted
by the Board
in R80—5.
Included
in
the proposed disapproval are provisions relating
to coatings applied
to HOHV products.
Specifically, the rule
adopted
in P80—5
allows
a maximum of
4.3 lbs VOM/gallon of
coating
for air—dried extreme performance top coat and 4.8 lbs
VOM/gallon
for air—dried
final
repair coating.
USEPA asserts
that th~presumptive norm for both of these categories
is 3.5
lbs/gal’, and hence that the current
Illinois limitations do not
represent PACT.
The basis
for the conclusion
that the presumptive norm for
the coatings
in question
is 3.5 lbs/gal derives from the CTG for
coating
of miscellaneous metal parts and products
(Ex.
3).
Although HOHV products are not identified by that name within the
CTG, they are presumed
to be included within the “other”
category
identified
in Figure 4.1 of the CTG
(Ex.
3 at 4—3).
Figure 4.1 states
in part that the presumptive norm of 3.5
lbs/gal
applies
to “other” parts and products which are:
Air or
forced air—dried items: Parts too large or too
heavy
for practical size ovens and/or sensitive heat
requirements.
Parts
to which heat sensitive
materials are attached.
Equipment assembled prior
to
top coating
for specific performance
or quality
standards.
Ex.
3 at 4—3
1 The second group of CTGs covered the following source
categories:
factory surface coating
of flatwood paneling;
petroleum refinery fugitive emissions;
pharmaceutical
manufacturing;
rubber tire manufacturing;
surface coating of
miscellaneous metal parts
and products; graphic arts
(printing);
dry cleaning perchloroethylene;
leak prevention
from gasoline
tank trucks and vapor collection systems; petroleum liquid
storage
in external floating roof tanks.
2 Unless otherwise indicated,
3.5 lbs/gal coatings are
hereinafter
assumed
to refer
to the VOM content of air—dried
extreme performance top coats and air—dried final repair coats.
3 Categories
listed within the miscellaneous metal parts and
products CTG are can, coil,
wire,
auto and light duty truck,
metal furniture,
large appliance,
and “other”.
83—190
—3—
P86—36 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Agency filed
its proposal
on September
2,
1986.
The
original Agency proposal addresses amendments
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 215.204 plus conforming
amendments
to 215.211.
On
March
30,
1987,
the Agency filed an
amended proposal
in which
it also
proposed technical amendments
to Section 215.212
to bring this
section into conformity with the amendments proposed
to Sections
215.204 and 215.211.
Concurrently with the action, EMD oi~December
8,
1986,
filed
what
it characterized
as
a site—specific’1
exception
to the
Agency’s proposed rule.
This proposal was docketed
as P86—51.
EMD’s proposal creates
a new subsection within Section 215.204
with VOM limitations specific
to diesel—electric
locomotive
manufacturing plants.
On the same date EMD also filed
a motion
to consolidate
the site—specific exception with the present
proceeding.
By Order of December
18,
1987,
the Board determined
that the EMD “site—specific” proposal can most reasonably be
construed
as
an amendment
to the Agency’s original proposal.
Accordingly,
the Board on the same date ordered that docket P86—
51 be
closed and the record of that proceeding
be incorporated
into the instant proceeding.
On January
12,
1987,
the Agency filed
a motion requesting
that the Board reconsider
its incorporation of the EMD “site—
specific” proposal.
That motion was denied by Board Order
of
January 22,
1987.
The Agency renewed the motion by filing
of May
13,
1987.
The Board again denied the motion
in the first notice
Opinion and
Order, June
25,
1987.
Merit hearings were held
on December
9,
1986,
in
Springfield,
Illinois,
and on February
26,
1987,
in Romeoville,
Illinois.
Testimony was presented by the Agency and by EMD at
both hearings,
and by Caterpillar,
Inc.
(“Caterpillar)
at
the
February
26 hearing.
On May
7,
1987, the Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources issued a “negative declaration”
of economic
impact in this proceeding.
The Economic and Technical Advisory
Committee concurred
in that determination on June
4,
1987.
The Agency filed post—hearing comments on April
6,
1987,
and
on May 13,
1987
(hereinafter “Agency Comment”).
A post—hearing
As proposed,
the rule
is properly characterized
as
a rule
of
general applicability,
in that
it would apply to all
manufacturing facilities
of the type identified.
However,
as
a
practical matter,
there
is only one such facility in Illinois,
and
to this
end
it would
function
as
a site—specific rule.
83—19 1
—4—
comment was also filed
on May 11,
1987,
by EMD (hereinafter “EMD
Comment”).
On June
25,
1987,
the Board adopted
a combination of the
Agency’s and EMD’s proposals
for first notice.
Publication
occurred
at 11
Ill.
Peg.
12546,
July 31,
1987.
Two public
comments
(hereinafter “PC”)
were filed on the last day of the
first notice comment period.
These were from EMD
(PC #1)
and
Caterpillar
(PC i~2).
On October
1,
1987,
the Board adopted
the amendments
for
second notice.
The second notice proposal contained
a slight
modification of the treatment of high—temperature
(“Hi—Teinp”)
aluminum coatings
in
response to EMD’s first—notice comment
(see
following),
but otherwise was unaltered
from the proposal as
presented
at first notice.
On November
19,
1987,
the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules
(“JCAR”)
issued
a certification of no objection provided
that the Board accept certain changes
recommended
by JCAR.
These
changes concern treatment of the EMD Hi—Temp aluminum coating
exception and the specification of
a date for submission of
compliance plans
(see following),
neither
of which substantively
alters the rule as sent to JCAR.
The Board accepts both changes.
PRIOR RULE AND ADOPTED AMENDMENTS
The principal previous regulations relating
to VOM emissions
from
JOIiV
facilities are found
at
35
Ill. Adm. Code Subpart
F,
Coating Operations,
Section 215.204(k).
These rules are
applicable throughout the State.
The adopted amendments retain
the present rule for the
majority of the State,
but lower the maximum allowable
limitations
in two coating
categories, extreme performance
topcoat air—dried and final
repair coat air—dried from current
limitations
to 3.5 lbs/gal
in
a ten—county area.
The ten
counties are Cook, DuPage,
Kane,
Lake, Macoupin, Madison,
McHenry,
Monroe,
St. Clair, and Will.
The original Agency proposal
is
a follows5:
Section 215.204
Emission Limitations for Manufacturing Plants
As presented here, the Agency’s original proposal has been
slightly modified by the Board.
All of these changes conform the
proposal
to
the proper format for regulatory amendments and
language.
No substantive changes
are included.
83—192
—5—
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:
Final
repair coat—air dried
In the remaining counties
Extreme performance prime coat
Extreme performance top coat—air
dried
kg/i
(lbs/gal)
2)
0.42
k)
Heavy Off—Highway Vehicle Products
1)
In Cook, DuPage,
Kane,
Lake, Macoupin, Madison,
McHenry, Monroe,
St. Clair
and Will Counties
Extreme performance prime coat
0.42
(3.5)
Extreme performance top coat—air
dried
0.42
(3.5)
_______________________________
0.42
(3.5)
(3.5)
0.52
(4.3)
~+
Final repair coat—air dried
0.58
(4.8)
Section 215.211
Compliance Dates and Geographic Areas
a)
Except as otherwise stated
in subsection
(b),
every
major owner
or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.204(j),
(k),
and
(1)
shall comply with those
sections
in accordance with the following dates:
1)
For Section 215.204(j)
and
(k)(2) Extreme
2erformance prime coat and Final repair coat
—
air
dried, by December
31,
1983.
For Section 2l5.204(k)(l),
by December
31,
1987.
For Section 2l5.204(k)(2) Extreme performance top
coat
—
air dried,
in accordance with Section
215. 210.
~‘4) For Section 215.204(1), by December 31,
1985.
Section 215.212
Compliance Plan
a)
The owner
or operator
of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.211(a)(l)
or (~3)shall submit
to the Agency
a compliance plan on or before August
19,
1983.
2)
~3)
83—193
—6—
b)
The owner
or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.2ll(a)(~4) shall submit to the Agency a
compliance plan on or before October
31,
1985.
c)
The owner
or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.21l(a)(2) shall
submit to the Agency
a
compliance plan no later
than
August
19,
1987.
ed)
The owner
or operator
of
an emission source subject
to
Section
215.211(b)
shall submit
to the Agency
a
compliance
plan no later than December
31,
1986.
~e)
The owner or operator
of an emission source subject to
Section
215.211(c)
shall submit
a compliance plan within
90 days after
the redesignation,
but in
no case
later
than December 31,
1986.
ef)
The owner
or operator of
an
emission source subject
to
Section
215.211(c)
shall not be required
to submit
a
compliance plan
if redesignation occurs after December
31,
1986.
~)
The Plan and schedule shall meet the reauirements
of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
201.
The EMD proposal,
as adopted
by the Board at first notice,
contained modifications from that originally offered by EMD.
The
modifications consisted
of change
in the suggested placement of
the EMD rule within Section 215.204, change
in the title
of the
subsection, and the inclusion
of
a limitation of 3.0 lbs/gal
for
“all other coatings”.
These changes were made partially on the
recommendation of the Agency
(Agency Comment at 9—10)
and
partially on Board
initiative.
The Board additionally requested
that the appropriateness
of these changes be addressed during the
first notice comment period; EMD objected to the modification
in
the title
(PC i~1), for
the reasons discussed below.
The EMD proposal, modified as noted above and
as adopted
at
first notice, would have added
the following subsection
to
Section 215.204:
m)
Existing Diesel—Electric
Locomotive Coating Lines
in
Cook County
1)
Extreme performance prime coat
0.42
(3.5)
2)
Extreme performance top coat—air
dried
0.52
(4.3)
3)
Final
repair coat—air dried
0.58
(4.8)
63—194
—7—
4)
High—temperature aluminum coating
0.72
(6.0)
5)
All other coatings
0.36
(3.0)
The Board
also noted
at first notice that adoption of
the
EMD proposal would require
a conforming modification to Section
215.211, similar
to that proposed
as
an accompaniment
to the
Agency’s proposal.
That change was made
in the first notice
Order.
A parallel modification
to
Section 215.212 was not
required given
the structure of the Agency’s proposed
modifications to
Section 215.211 and 215.212.
At second notice the Board determined
that the higher VOM
limitation applied
to the Hi—Temp aluminum coating used by EMD
should apply to all EMD products,
not just the EMD locomotive
products
(see following).
To accomodate
this determination,
the
Board at second notice eliminated Section 215.204(m) (4)
as
proposed at first notice and modified Section 2l5.204(k)(l)
as
follows:
kg/i
(lbs/gal)
k)
Heavy Off—Highway Vehicle Products
1)
In Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, Macoupin, Madison,
McHenry, Monroe,
St. Clair
and Will Counties
Extreme performance prime coat
0.42
(3.5)
Extreme performance
top coat—air
dried
0.42
(3.5)
Final
repair coat—air dried
0.42
(3.5)
High—temperature aluminum coating
used at existing diesel—electric
locomotive manufacturing plants
0.72
(6.0)
This alteration also
required
a conforming alteration
to the
final
item
in Section 215.204(m)
to delineate
that “all other
coatings” does not include
the Hi—Temp aluminum coating; this
alteration was also made
at second notice.
The final alterations
in the proposed amendments,
which
produces the amendments adopted today, are occasioned
by the JCAR
comments.
First,
JCAR noted that proposed Section 215.212(c),
which specifies the time
by which owners or operators
of
a
emission source shall submit
a compliance plan contains
a date
now past.
JCAR recommended that Section 215.212(c)
accordingly
be deleted.
The Agency,
in
a comment filed October
26,
1987,
concurred
in
this recommendation.
The Board accepts this
recommendation,
the net affect
of which to eliminate
all proposed
amendments
to Section 215.212 other
than for two minor changes
83—195
—8—
which conform Section 215.212 with Section 215.211.
This change
is
incorporated within the adopted
rule.
The second JCAR recommendation
is that the Board adopt
Section 215.204(m)
in the
form exactly as proposed at first
notice,
rather than
as modified
at second
notice.
Thus,
the Hi—
Temp aluminum exception would remain as item 2l5.204(m)(4)
and
“all other coatings” would remain
as
item 215.204(rn)(5).
The
recommendation does not alter
the intent of the Board’s second
notice action of allowing the Hi—Temp aluminum exception
to apply
to all
of
EMD’S products,
because the Board’s inclusion of the
Hi—Temp aluminum exception
in Section 215.204(k)
would not be
altered.
The Board accepts this JCAR recommendation and
incorporates
it within the adopted
rule.
RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENTS
Overview
As noted above, the purpose of
the adopted amendments
is
to
overcome the objections
of the USEPA to certain rules promulgated
by the Board
in the original PACT
II proceeding, R80—5.
The
basis of the USEPA’s objection
is that the existing limitations
for coatings
in the HOHV category do not represent RACT
in that
coatings meeting
3.5 lb/gal are presently available and
in
commercial use
(R.
at
43).
In order
for Illinois to overcome the tJSEPA’s objection
without changing the present rule,
it
would be necessary
to
demonstrate
to the USEPA
that 3.5 lbs/gal
coatings are not
reasonably available
to HOHV manufacturers.
However,
the Board
does not believe that this demonstration can be made.
Ample
evidence exists that 3.5 lbs/gal coatings are available,
and that
at least some fraction of the HOHV industry can and does use them
(see following).
For this reason the Board today adopts those
amendments proposed by the Agency which would limit HOHV air—
dried extreme performance top coatings and final repair coatings
to 3.5 lbs/gal.
This
is not
to say,
however,
that the Board believes that
3.5 lbs/gal coating
are necessarily available
for all HOHV
products
or
for all facilities within the HOHV category.
The
miscellaneous metals parts and products CTG in fact contemplates
this circumstance, noting:
It must be cautioned
that the limits reported
in
this
report
are necessarily based on
a general
consideration of the capabilities
and problems of the
hundreds of
industries which coat their
products.
It
(sic) will
not be applicable
to every plant or even
every industry within the many industries which coat.
83—196
—9—
For example, the level
of control which
is herein
recommended
for
a particular
source
may
be based on
a
type of coating which cannot meet
the specifications
required of another product from
a similar source.
Ex.
3 at
iv
(emphasis added)
The CTG further
notes:
Current technology does not provide low—polluting
coatings which can successfully replace conventional
coatings
for all the specialty items coated by the
many industrial categories covered
by
this
CTGI...
There will
be
...
situations where low—polluting
coatings may never be applicable...
Ex.
3
at 4—2
The CTG thus allows that the State may demonstrate that 3.5
lbs/gal coatings are not reasonably available for some portion of
the industries,
plants,
or products included within the HOHV
category.
The Board believes that EMD has made
a satisfactory
demonstration that
3.5 lbs/gal
coatings are not reasonably
available for certain
of its products
(see following),
and
accordingly,
the Board will adopt special limitations
for EMD’s
locomotive coating
line.
Finally, the Board believes that the present amendments need
be applied only to those areas within which there
is
a
demonstrated
need
for further
reductions
in VOM.
Accordingly,
the Board will adopt the proposal of the Agency that the
amendments apply only in
a ten—county
area
(see following).
Availability of Coatings
to the HOHV Industry
in General
A central issue
in the instant matter
is whether
3.5 lbs/gal
coatings constitute
PACT for
the HOHV industry.
A coating
is
PACT if
it
is reasonably available
to
a manufacturer.
Reasonable
availability apparently means not only that formulations which
meet the 3.5 lbs/gal limitation exist, but also that the
formulations
(1)
are commercially available,
(2) are not
prohibitively expensive,
and
(3)
are capable of meeting the
specifications for particular jobs and products.
In addition
to the documentation provided
in the CTG,
the
Agency has provided independent documentation that 3.5 lbs/gal
coatings are RACT
for
the HOHV industry
in general.
The
principal portion of this evidence
is provided
in
a study jointly
commissioned by the USEPA and the Agency and conducted by Pacific
83—197
—10—
Environmental Services
(Ex
2; hereinafter “PES” Study)6.
The PES
Study consists principally of surveys of coatings suppliers and
of HOHV manufacturing facilities.
The conclusion of the study
is
that
3.5 lbs/gal coatings are both available
to and are being
used by segments of the Illinois HOHV industry
(Id.
at 6—1).
As evidence of availability, the PES Study cites
a variety
of
3.5 lbs/gal coatings which are commercially available from
eight different suppliers
(Id. at
3—2).
The Study also cites
27
coating suppliers who are “investigating low—VOC coatings”
(Id.
at
3—3)
,
as apparent evidence of suppliers’
interest
in
developing additional compliant coatings.
As evidence of use,
the PES Study cites
six HOHV facilities
that currently use 3.5 lbs/gal
top coatings7
(Id. at 3—5).
These
include some Illinois facilities which would not be required
to
use 3.5 lbs/gal coatings because they are not located
in the ten—
county area within which the amendments
~re proposed to be
applicable.
However,
of the five active0 facilities located
within the ten—county area,
3.5 lbs/gal coatings are reported to
be
in use by two and
in partial use by
a third
(P.
at
52,
135,
140).
This
information
is summarized
in the following table,
which includes the facilities and their
location, compliance
status relative
to the 3.5 lbs/gal
limit as purported
to by the
Agency, and types of products:
6 The PES study was commissioned
in
September 1985.
A draft copy
of the study was submitted
to the Agency
in October
1985.
This
draft was reviewed by and comment solicited from the USEPA,
the
Agency, coating suppliers,
and members
of the regulated community
(R. at
44;
Ex.
4 to
8;
Ex l3b
to l3h; Ex.
15, attachment
4).
A
final draft was then composed by PES and submitted to the Agency
in January 1986 under
the title “Study of Low—VOC Coatings
Available
for Use
in the Illinois Heavy-Duty Off—Highway Vehicle
Manufacturing
Industry”
(Ex.
2).
It is not clear
from the PES Study that 3.5 lbs/gal final
repair coatings are also available
to and used by these
facilities.
Additionally, one of the six facilities was later
indicated
to have given up use of 3.5 lbs/gal
top coatings
(P. at
46;
Ex.
5).
8 The PES Study identified
a sixth facility within the ten—county
area,
Allis—Chalmers Engine Division,
Harvey and Phoenix
(Cook
County).
The record
indicates that
this facility subsequently
ceased operations
in May 1986
(P.
at
50, 67;
Ex. 11).
83—198
—11—
“Compliance”
with
3.5 lbs/
Facility/Location
gal limitation
Types
of Products
Allis—Chalmers
Industrial
In
Industrial
forklifts
Truck Division Matteson
Compliance
(Cook County)
International Harvester
In
6—cylinder diesel
Meirose Park
(Cook Co)
Compliance
engines
for agricul-
tural
and construction
equipment and trucks
Dresser
Industries
Partial
Heavy—duty tractors
&
Libertyville
(Lake
Co)
Compliance
construction equipment
Caterpillar,
Inc.
Not
in
Components to heavy—
Joliet
(Will
Co)
Compliance
duty equipment;
e.g.,
hydraulic valves,
bulldozer blades,
push
arms,
and scrapers
General Motors,
Electro—
Not
in
Electro—motive engines
Motive Div LaGrange
Compliance
and locomotives
(Cook County)
Modified9 from
Ex.
2
Of the five facilities,
testimony was presented
in the
instant record on behalf of only the latter two, Caterpillar
and
EMD.
The Agency asserts
that Dresser, which
did not appear at
hearing, currently uses some
3.5 lbs/gal coatings
(P.
at
48,
140), but that the Dresser
facility “is not now in daily
compliance with the present regulation and that this non-
compliance status will certainly not improve
if the facility uses
This table was originally presented
at 2—4
of the PES Study
(Ex.
2).
A modified version was presented during the testimony
of
Dr. John Reed of the Agency
(P.
at
47)
as
Ex.
15, Attachment
1.
The version presented here
is modified further based
on
information present in the record.
The latter modifications
include change
in ownership of the Dresser Industries
facility,
which was previously owned by International Harvester
(R.
at
47,
67;
Ex.
4); change
in “compliance status”
of the Dresser
Industries facility from “in compliance”
to “partial compliance”
(P.
at 135);
change
in name of the Caterpillar facility from
Caterpillar Tractor Company to Caterpillar,
Inc.
(P.
at
218);
and
addition of “scrapers”
to the list
of Caterpillar products
(Ex.
5
at 2).
83—199
—12—
...
paints that are above
the 3.5 pounds per VOC gallon limit”
(R.
at 49).
The Agency opines that Dresser’s
failure
to present
opposition
to the Agency’s proposal signifies that Dresser has
the ability
to comply and
is not presently complying simply
because
it
is not required to comply (Agency Comment at 7—8).
On the basis of the above, the Board concludes that there
are generally available, although not necessarily universally
available,
3.5 lbs/gal coatings
for use
in the HOHV industry.
For this reason,
3.5 lbs/gal coatings constitute
the general PACT
for HOHV facilities.
Special
rules
for EMD’s Locomotive
Coating Line
As noted above, the CTG allows that 3.5 lbs/gal RACT
coatings may not exist
for all miscellaneous metals parts and
products.
The Board believes that EMD has successfully
demonstrated that this
is the case for the diesel locomotives
produced at its facility.
EMD produces products other
than
diesel locomotives at its LaGrange
facility,
including non—
locomotive engines and generators
(P.
at
268; EMD Comment
at
5).
However,
the discussion
in this
section,
unless otherwise
noted,
as well
as the rule proposed for
the EMD facility, goes
specifically
to just the diesel locomotive operations.
Discussion
of the non—locomotive engines and generators follows
this section.
The EMD position that
3.5 lbs/gal coatings
do not constitute
PACT is based on several characteristics associated with its
product, method
of production, production specifications,
and
coating availability.
Major elements include the large size and
complex configuration of the locomotives, difficulty of access
to
painted surfaces,
and complex paint patterns and large variety of
colors which are required.
Locomotives are fully assembled when they are painted
(P.
at
194).
This occurs because each locomotive must be painted
according
to
the color and logo specifications of
the individual
railroad which has purchased it
(P.
at
190;
Ex.
C2
to C4, C36—
40).
Purchasers include both domestic and foreign railroads
(P.
at 189—192),
each of which has special color
and pattern
specifications.
Because locomotives are fully assembled when they are
painted,
a large variety of surfaces are encountered
(P.
at 194),
including cut—ins, doors, hinges, grilles,
fans,
ducts, etc.
(P.
at 202,
212).
This,
in combination with the complex paint
pattern required by the purchasers, additionally requires that
all locomotives
be painted manually.
Painters wearing protective
“moon suits”
(P.
at
201) must stand
on and move around the
locomotive
or special scaffolding during the painting operation
(P. at
194—5); some surfaces must be sprayed from distances of
six
to eight feet
(P.
at 195).
83—200
—l
3—
All painting occurs
in one of two confined paint booths
(R.
at
200).
To assist drying,
heated air enters through filters at
the top of the paint booth
and
flows down
along
the sides
of the
locomotive
and
is exhausted through
filters at the lower walls
(P.
at
200).
The velocity of air flow is maintained at
approximately 150 feet per minute, pursuant to OSHA regulations,
which results
in
a total exhaust volume of one million cubic feet
per minute
(P.
at
195).
The breezes thus created
in the paint
booths present further difficulties
in spray painting
to
specification.
The
complexity of painting patterns also requires
that portions of the locomotive be masked before additional
coatings and colors can be applied
(P.
at 205).
This
in turn
requires that previously applied coatings be dry
so that they are
not damaged by the masking
(P.
at 205).
A further facet of the requirement upon EMD of painting each
locomotive
individually
to the color specifications of the
purchaser
is that there
be available
a broad range of colors
(R.
at
187).
EMD presently uses six different prime coatings and
fourteen top coats
in approximately
75 colors
(P.
at
194,
216).
EMD contends that paint suppliers are reluctant
to attempt to
develop compliant formulations
in this broad
range
of required
colors given the small
usage of the paints
(P.
at 264).
EMD has achieved compliance with existing Section 215.204(k)
for
all
of the top and
final repair coatings
(P. at 184—5).
EMD
has also converted
all of
its prime coatings to
3.5 lbs/gal
paints, pursuant to existing Section 215.204(k)
(P.
at 201).
END
contends,
however, that the latter change has presented problems,
including increase
in film thickness from
1
to
2 mils to
2
to
4
mils
on flat surfaces and
to
as much as
6 mils on non—flat
surfaces
(R.
at
202).
Moreover, prime coating usage has
increased by a
factor of 1.5,
so
that the expected reduction in
VOM emissions has not occurred
(P.
at 202).
EMD concedes that
3.5 lbs/gal coatings are available,
in
the
sense that they can be purchased
(P.
at 203).
However,
EMD
contends that they are not “available”
to
locomotive
manufacturers because the existing coatings can not be
successfully applied
(Id.).
As evidence thereto, END draws
on
experience
from “extensive tests
of
3.5 pound coatings both on
test panels and fully assembled locomotives”
(Id.).
EMD contends that the tests have shown that there are
four
primary reasons why high—solids coatings can not be used on
locomotives.
These
are
(1)
film builds are excessive,
(2)
finish
appearance
is unsatisfactory,
(3) dry—to—tape times
are
unacceptably long,
and
(4) sprayable pot life
is too short
to
enable painting
an entire locomotive
(P.
at 203—13).
These
problems remain
in spite of END’s efforts
to modify application
methods to accommodate high—solids coatings
(P.
at 217—20).
83—201
—14—
EMD also contends that
it has explored waterbourne coatings,
but opines that the only available waterbourne coatings durable
enough
for use on
a locomotive require baking rather than air—
drying
(P.
at 216).
However,
a fully assembled locomotive can
not be baked both because of its size and because the presence of
electrical wiring and rubber parts which can not withstand
extremely high temperatures
(P. at
216—7).
Finally,
EMD has explored achieving compliance via add—on
controls
(P.
at 225—35).
The principal problem
is that the
amount of reduction
in VOM emissions required from EMD
is small1°
so that even
a moderately costly control
system produces
a very
large cost per ton of reduction.
Costs
for various possible add—
on systems as
cited by END range upward from $89,000 per
ton
(P.
at 233—4),
based on
its own estimates that its required reduction
is
16 tons per year
(P.
at 233).
EMD—LaGrange
is
the only diesel
locomotive manufacturer
in
Illinois,
and
is one of only two in the United States
(P.
at 187,
245).
The second
is the General Electric facility in Erie
County, Pennsylvania
(Id.).
Erie County is nonattainment
for
ozone
(END Comment at
2).
The Pennsylvania PACT rules provide
for
a
4.3 lbs/gal limit on top coats
for locomotives
(Ex.
E at
129.52),
the same limitation here requested by END.
The
Pennsylvania SIP has been approved by the
(JSEPA
(R.
at 246;
EMD
Comment at
3).
The preceding discussion has focused
on the top coatings and
final
repair coatings available to
END.
END also raises the
issue of
a
specialty coating used
in
small quantity.
That is the
Hi—Temp aluminum coating used
to paint the turbo exhaust duct and
adapter screen assembly used on the locomotives
(P.
at 199).
Both components must withstand temperatures up to 1,000 degrees
Fahrenheit.
END contends that because use of the Hi—Temp
aluminum coatings
is small,
65 gallons or less per
year,
suppliers have no interest in developing
a compliant coating
(R.
at
214).
EMD further contends that
it has been unable
to obtain
a Hi—Temp aluminum coating with
a VON content below 6.0 lbs/gal,
and that this situation
is not expected
to change
(Id.).
The
Agency
itself accedes that END has “made the necessary case for
the higher VON level
in its Hi-Temp aluminum coating” (Agency
Comment at
9).
10 The Agency estimates the required reduction
to be 5.62 tons
per year
(P.
at 111).
At the time of the hearing
END estimated
it be be
16 tons per year
(Ex. H), which was later corrected to
34
tons per year
(END Comment at
5).
83—202
—I
~—
The Board
has faced
the matter
of use
of Hi—Temp aluminum
coatings at END’s facility before.
This occurred
in the
proceeding PCB
86—195,
in which END sought and
the Board granted
a variance
for use of the
6.0 lbs/gal Hi—Temp aluminum coating
until December
31,
1987,
or until the Board makes
a final
determination
in the
instant rulemaking,
whichever occurs first
(General Motors Corporation (Electro—Notive Division)
v.
IEPA,
PCB 86—195, February 19,
1987).
The record
of the PCB 86—195
proceeding has been incorporated
into that of the instant matter
(P.
at 214).
In
PCB 86—195 the Board was impressed with the arbitrariness
which would be associated with requiring END
to comply with
existing regulations given
the unavailability of
a compliant Hi—
Temp aluminum coating, and the de minimus environmental impact
associated with continued use by END of
the existing
6.0 lbs/gal
Hi—Temp aluminum coating.
As regards the latter,
the Board notes
that the
total VON emissions related
to END’s Hi-Temp aluminum
coating operation in 1986 was 0.195
tons or 391 pounds, and that
the anticipated 1987 emissions are 0.12 tons or
240 pounds
(PCB
86—195, February
19,
1987, at 5).
The Board believes that the
instant record
continues
to support special consideration of the
use of Hi—Temp aluminum coatings by END.
For all the reasons discussed
above, the Board believes that
END has successfully demonstrated
that PACT for its locomotive
operations consists of the rule as adopted herein.
PACT for EMD’s Non—locomotive Engines and Generators
As the final matter relating
to the END proposal,
END has
contended throughout this proceeding that the non-locomotive
engines and generators which
it produces should,
along with its
locomotives,
be excluded from the 3.5
lbs/gal coating limitation
(e.g., END Comment at 5—6).
However, at first notice the Board
proposed exception only for the locomotive coating line.
This
was effected by titling
the section containing the END exception
“Existing Diesel—Electric Locomotive Coating lines
in Cook
County”
(emphasis added;
see p.
6 herein), as was recommended by
the Agency (Agency Comment at 9).
The Board
based
its
first
notice decision on the following analysis:
END contends that its engines and generators,
like
its locomotives, have complex configurations which
makes them difficult to coat evenly,
that they are
painted
in
a “job shop” mode,
that their appearance
is important
to customers,
and
that they require
extreme performance coatings
END
Comment at 5—6.
However,
the Board does not believe that these
features alone
are sufficient
for
a finding that 3.5
lbs/gal coatings do not constitute PACT for the
engines and generators.
Clearly, difficulty of
83—203
—16—
coating evenly,
complexity of configuration,
appearance,
and the need
for extreme performance
coating are not attributes peculiar
to END’s engines
and generators, but rather attributes held by many
miscellanous metal
parts and products for which
compliant coatings are demonstratively available.
Similarly,
END has made no demonstration
that the job
shopping of products
is by itself sufficient to
determine PACT.
Conversely, some of the elements
that the Board
finds compelling
for excepting the
locomotive line, including
the complexity of painting
patterns and surfaces, dry—to—tape times
(P.
at 278),
and the lack of available coatings, have not been
demonstrated here.
The Board accordingly believes
that there
is insufficient justification for
exception other than for the locomotive line.
First Notice Opinion and Order,
June
25,
1987,
at
17
In its
first notice comment
(PC
j~l) END contests parts
of
this analysis.
END opines
that:
END’s
special
PACT
limitations thus seems to be based
on the following assumptions:
1)
END’s engines and
generators,
as opposed
to its painted locomitive body
surfaces,
are not different from other heavy off—
highway vehicle products, and 2) compliant coatings,
i.e.,
coatings with a VOC content of 3.5 lbs./gallon
are “demonstratively available”
for these other
products.
PC.
#1, at
2
END thereafter attempts
to show that its non—locomotive engines
arid
generators are different from other off—highway vehicle
products, that compliant coatings are not demonstratively
available for non—locomotive products,
and that all END products
—-
locomotive
and non—locomotive
——
are painted with
the same
painting process
(PC #1).
The Board
finds much of EMD’s public comment argument
misplaced.
The Board has not premised any of its decisions in
this matter on the assumption that all HOHV products
are the
same.
Quite
to the contrary, the Board has diligently attempted
to sort out the distinctions among
the many different products
covered
in the HOHV category.
It
is only due
to this action that
the Board has been able to distinguish the particular
characteristics of EMD’s locomotives which cause the Board
to
propose special
PACT rules for the locomotives.
Moreover, as the
above citation from the first notice Opinion and Order clearly
indicates,
the Board placed weight on END’s own failure
to make
the same compelling argument for the unique character of the non—
locomotive engines and generators that
it did for its
83—204
-17—
locomotives.
The Board notes that END still does not contend
that
its non—locomotive engines require the large number of
different coatings, the extensive masking
arid complexity of
painting patterns,
the long dry-to—tape times,
nor the need to
paint within the existing paint tunnel
that constitute compelling
arguments
for alternative PACT
for
the locomotive line.
The Board
is aware
that compelling
arguments, should they
exist,
for excepting the non—locomotive engines and generators
may not be the same arguments upon which
a locomotive
exception
is justifiable.
However, the Board notes that EMD presented very
limited testimony regarding the non—locomotive engines and
generators, preferring instead
to concentrate
its testimony on
its locomotive coating problems.
END would apparently wish the
Board
to presume
that the non—locomotive engines and generators
have the same coating limitations
as do the locomotives,
and
thus
have the demonstration made
for the locomotives also suffice
for
the other products.
This
is
a presumption which the Board can
not make,
and one which seemingly flies in the face of
END’s own
admissions regarding the differences between coatings of
locomotives and its other products.
In fact,
the Board is
at a
loss
to understand END’s contention that “all
END’s products
——
locomotive
and non—locomotive
——
are painted with the same
painting process”
(PC
#1 at 5), when END also admits that coating
of the non—locomotive products occurs outside the paint tunnel
and that there, among other
differences, the dry—to—tape and
short pot life problems do not exist.
The critical matter, therefore,
is not whether the non—
locomotive engines and generators are different from other HOHV
products, but rather
whether the differences are such as to
support an alternative PACT.
The Board does not believe that END
has made this demonstration.
On the matter of the availability of compliant coatings,
EMD
contends that 3.5 lbs/gal top coatings are not available to
several manufacturers of particular products,
or
in one cited
case of availability, that the product
so differs
from END’s as
to be make the availability of this coating
irrelevant
(PC
#1 at
2—5).
The Board
also finds this argument misplaced.
END is
reminded
that 3.5 lbs/gal top coatings are the USEPA’s
presumptive norm
for
the HOHV category.
It
is therefore
incumbent upon the Board to
find, and upon EMD to show before
the
Board, that END’s product can not be coated with 3.5 lbs/gal top
coating
if an alternative PACT
is
to be successfully
demonstrated.
To this end
it
is irrelevant that compliant
coatings may be unavailable
to some other manufacturing plants
and products,
or
that one specifically available coating will
not
suffice for
EMD’s non—locomotive engines and generators.
As
a final argument
for excepting non—locomotive engines and
generators, END points out that, the Board having found that PACT
83—205
—18—
for Hi—Temp Aluminum coatings
is 6.0
lbs/gal,
it would
be
illogical
to have the exception apply only to parts destined for
locomotive use and not also
for END’s other products.
This point
is well
taken
to the extent that the amendments as previously
proposed are inconsistent with respect
to Hi—Temp Aluminum
coatings.
However, the Board
fails
to see how this matter
is
in
any way relevant
to the issue of PACT for top coats and final
repair coats.
The appropriate resolution
is
to provide that the
Hi—Temp Aluminum exception applies to all END products, rather
than that the top coat and final
repair coat exceptions be
extended
to all
END products.
This
is accomplished by specifying
the Hi—Temp aluminum limitation in both Section 2l5.204(m)(4)
and
Section 215.204(k) (1), as noted above.
PACT for Caterpillar
—
Joliet
Caterpillar also contends that 3.5 ‘bs/gal coatings do not
constitute PACT for its Joliet facility1
.
The Agency contends
that
it has explored with Caterpillar
the grounds upon which the
Agency might support Caterpillar’s contention
(P. at
51;
Ex.
12d,
l2e,
12i,
12j,
17),
but that it has received only “very limited
information” from Caterpillar
(P.
at 51).
On this basis the
Agency believes that Caterpillar has not made
a demonstration
sufficient
to meet the test of alternative PACT
(P.
at 137,
155—
6;
Ex.
17).
The Caterpillar situation differs
in one critical regard
from that faced by END,
in that Caterpillar currently uses only
one coating which does not meet the 3.5 lb/gal limitation
(P.
at
357).
Thus, Caterpillar would seemingly need
to identify only
one compliant coating to meet the requirements of the adopted
amendments.
The Agency’s principal observation relative
to Caterpillar
is an alleged
admission by Caterpillar that
it has
in fact been
supplied with
a 3.5 lbs/gal compliant coating that meets
Caterpillar’s specifications
(P. at 317)
and that various other
compliant coatings are undergoing
tests
(P.
at 317).
The Agency
therefore contends that the question of whether 3.5 lbs/gal
coatings constitute PACT for Caterpillar
is moot (Agency Comment
at 6).
The Agency further contends that Caterpillar’s testimony
regarding
the cost of add—on control
equipment
is irrelevant “in
light of the fact that Caterpiller has located
a compliant
coating, obviating the need for add—on control”
(Id.
at
7).
Caterpillar,
conversely,
contends
that
3.5
lbs/gal
coatings
are
not
actually
available
to
it
(P.
at
340—50),
given
that
it
requires
up
to
two
years
to
test
and
to
obtain
approval
for
use
of
a
paint
after
it
has been supplied
(P.
at 313).
11 Unless otherwise indicated, discussion of the Caterpillar
facility refers to the Caterpillar plant at Joliet.
83—206
—19—
The Board believes that the principal shortcoming
in
Caterpillar’s
argument
is
that
it has not countered the
observation
that
other HOHV manufacturers which produce products
similar
to
those
of
Caterpillar
are
currently using compliant
coatings
(see
PES
Study;
P.
at
391—3).
Therefore, the Board does
not believe
that
Caterpillar has successfully demonstrated that
compliant PACT coatings for its facility and products are other
than 3.5 lbs/gal coatings.
In the context,
the Board
notes that
Caterpillar
argues that
it made such
a demonstration as part of
the record developed in the R80—5 proceeding.
However,
such
earlier demonstration
is irrelevant
to the matter
at hand, since
it
is the current availability of 3.5 lbs/gal coatings which
is
at issue.
Geographic Applicability
The Agency proposal has the amended VON limitations apply
within a specified ten counties.
These consist of one county
(Macoupin)
which
is included solely because of its nonattainment
status,
and nine counties which are included because they are
noriattairiment
on their own account and/or are part of major
urbanized areas which are nonattainrnent.
The latter
includes the
six counties which comprise the Chicago urban area (Cook, DuPage,
Kane,
Lake,
McHenry, and Will)
and the three counties which
comprise
the Illinois portion of the
St.
Louis
urban area
(Madison, Monroe,
and St.
Clair).
The Board believes that the Agency proposal represents an
appropriate scope of geographic applicability.
The Board
so
concludes fully mindful o~the questions that have been raised
regarding why Will County
2, an attainment county,
should be
included within the
scope of the amendments
(P. at 294—301,
304—
6,
335—7).
It
is required, at a minimum, that PACT rules be applied
within counties which
are nonattainment
for ozone.
However,
there are compelling reasons that the rules also apply in some
counties
in addition
to those which are classified as
nonattainment.
The Board believes that the most important of
these is that emissions in certain attainment counties can impact
on ozone air quality in adjacent nonattainment counties due
to
atmospheric transport of VON into nonattainment areas.
The
significance of the transport phenomenon has been extensively
developed in the instant record
(P. at
16,
29—40,
45; Agency
Comment, April
6,
1987),
as well
as
in prior Board PACT
12 McHenry County is
a second attainment county
in which the
currently proposed rules would apply.
There are
no affected
facilities within McHenry County.
The Caterpillar facility
is
located
in Will County.
83— 207
—20—
proceedings.
The
Board
does
not
see
that
anything
new
has
been
presented
in
the
instant record which would
justify
a change
in
the
Board’s
prior
determinations
regarding
the
significance
of
transport.
This notwithstanding,
the Agency advances several additional
reasons
for including Will County within the list
of counties to
which the amendments apply.
These are that Will County
is a part
of the Chicago urbanized area
(P. at 13—15;
21—22; 45); that
emissions reductions from Will County have already been included
in previous SIP analyses and are necessary to demonstrate ozone
attainment
(P. at
16;
23—26;
45); that controls as proposed are
necessary to maintain Will County’s attainment
status
(P.
at 19);
and
that exclusion of Will County would place
an even greater
burden on the adjacent nonattainment counties to reduce VON
emissions
in order
to reach attainment of the ozone NAASQ
(Agency
Comment, April
6,
at
2).
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
The first—order environmental benefit which follows from
adoption of these amendments is
a reduction in atmospheric
loading of VON.
However,
it
is difficult to exactly quantify the
amount of reduction which
is to be expected.
This occurs
for
several
reasons,
including uncertainty as
to how many gallons of
coating will
be required by a given facility
in its future
production, the degree
to which coating use will be affected by
a
change
in coating availability,
and the possibility that
a given
facility will achieve compliance by a method other
than use of
low-VON coatings.
To the best judgement of the Agency emission reductions
expected from Caterpillar amount to approximately
29 tons per
year
(R. at 111);
Caterpillar estimates this reduction to be 17.9
tons per year
(R.
at 308; PC
#2).
Reductions
to be expected from
Dresser are significantly less certain.
The Agency estimates
that for various days in September 1986 Dresser’s emissions
exceeded that allowable under the proposed rule at rates from
33
to
98 tons per
year
(Ex.
15, Attachment 6).
However, these
emissions apparently include some exceedances of the present rule
(P. at 49),
so that
their elimination can not be fully attributed
to adoption of the proposed rule.
Promulgation of the amendments also provides
a safeguard
against those facilities which currently use
3.5 lbs/gal coatings
from reverting
to higher—VOM coatings.
However, there
is nothing
in the record which allows
the Board
to estimate what atmospheric
loadings would
thus be prevented.
83—208
—21—
ORDER
The Clerk
of the Pollution Control Board
is directed
to
submit the following adopted rule
to the Secretary of State
for
final notice:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER 1:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
c:
EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 215
ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
SUBPART F:
COATING OPEPATIONS
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:
kg/i
(lbs/gal)
k)
Heavy Off—Highway Vehicle Products
1)
In Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, Macoupin, Madison,
McHenry, Monroe,
St. Clair and Will Counties
Extreme performance prime coat
0.42
(3.5)
Extreme performance top coat—air
dried
0.42
(3.5)
Final
repair
coat—air dried
0.42
(3.5)
High—temperature aluminum coating
used at existing diesel—electric
locomotive manufacturing plants
0.72
(6.0)
2)
In
the
remaining
counties
~
Extreme performance prime coat
0.42
(3.5)
~-)~
Extreme performance top coat—air
dried
0.52
(4.3)
+
Final repair coat—air dried
0.58
(4.8)
83—209
—22—
m)
Existing
Diesel—Electric
Locomotive
Coating
Lines
in
Cook County
1)
Extreme
performance
prime
coat
0.42
(3.5)
2)
Extreme performance top coat—air
dried
0.52
(4.3)
3)
Final
repair
coat—air
dried
0.58
(4.8)
4)
High—temperature aluminum coating
0.72
(6.0)
5)
All other coatings
0.36
(3.0)
Section 215.211
Compliance Dates and Geographic Areas
a)
Except as otherwise stated
in subsection
(b), every
major owner
or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.204(j),
(k),
ertd
(1), and
(m)
shall
comply
with those sections
in accordance with the following
dates:
1)
For Section 215.204(j)
and (k)(2) Extreme
performance prime coat and Final repair coat
—
air
dried, by December
31,
1983.
2)
For Section 215.204(k)(1)
and
(m), by December
31,
1987.
~3)
For Section 215.204(k) (2) Extreme performance top
coat
—
air dried,
in accordance with Section
215.210.
~4)
For Section 215.204(1),
by December
31,
1985.
Section 215.212
Compliance Plan
a)
The owner or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 2l5.2ll(a)(1) or (~3)shall
submit to the Agency
a compliance plan on or before August
19, 1983.
b)
The owner
or operator of an emission source subject to
Section 215.2l1(a)(34) shall submit to the Agency
a
compliance plan on or before October
31,
1985.
c)
The owner or operator of an emission source subject to
Section 215.211(b)
shall submit to the Agency
a
compliance plan no later
than December 31,
1986.
d)
The owner or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.211(c)
shall submit
a compliance plan within
90 days after the redesignation,
but in no case later
than December
31,
1986.
83—210
—23—
e)
The
owner
or operator of an emission source subject
to
Section 215.211(c)
shall
not be required
to submit a
compliance plan
if redesignation occurs after
December
31, 1986.
f)
The Plan and schedule shall meet the requirements of
35
Ill. Adm. Code
201.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board
Member
Jacob
D.
Dumelle
dissented.
I,
Dorothy
N.
Gunri,
Clerk
of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day of
~
,
1987, by
a vote
of
~5—/
1~.
Dorothy M. Gum,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
R~—21
I
