ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 19, 1987
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
(ELECTRO-MOTIVE DIVISION),
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—195
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R. C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board on the November 5, 1986,
petition for variance and December 8, 1986, amended petition for
variance filed by General Motors Corporation, Electro—Motive
Division (“EMD”).
Petitioner seeks variance from the requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.204(k) as these apply to its High Temperature
Aluminum top coating (“Hi—Temp Aluminum”) operation at its La
Grange, Illinois, facility. Section 215.204(k) presently limits
emissions of volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) from all top
coating operations of manufacturers of heavy off—highway vehicle
products to 4.3 pounds VOC per gallon of coating. Variance is
requested until the earlier of December 31, 1987, or until a
final determination has been made with respect EMD’s proposed
modification of 215.204(k) (see below).
On January 22, 1987, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”) filed its Recommendation (“Rec.”) in this
matter. At that time the Agency recommended granting of the
requested relief, conditioned upon verification of several points
of information presented in the petition and amended petition.
Hearing was held on February 4, 1987, in Chicago,
Illinois. At hearing the Agency, having received the requested
verification to its satisfaction, affirmed its recommendation
that the variance be granted. The Agency bases its
recommendation on three principal points (R. at 13): the variance
is of short—term; there would be little environmental harm for
the pendancy of the variance; there is presently before the Board
a proceeding in which consideration is being given to VOC
limitations as they apply to heavy off—highway vehicle products.
On February 5, 1987, EMD filed a motion for expedited
decision. The motion is granted.
76-54
—2—
BACKGROUND
EMD produces locomotives and miscellaneous power products
for oil drill4~ngand marine propulsion at two plants, its Chicago
and La Grange-’ facilities. The Chicago facility has been sold
and is scheduled for closure on February 28, 1987. Thereafter,
EMD will conduct operations only at its La Grange facility.
One of the operations presently conducted at the EMD—Chicago
facility is the hi—temp aluminum coating of two components of
locomotive engine exhaust systems. Hi—temp aluminum coating
material is not a compliant coating, as it contains 6.01 pounds
VOC per gallon of coating material. However, the Chicago
facility is exempt from the limitations of 215.204(k) pursuant to
215.206(a), because the plant’s total VOC emissions are less than
25 tons/year.
Following closure of EMD’s Chicago facility, EMD will no
longer be able to conduct the hi—temp alumin9 coating operation
there, and accordingly desires to reestablish the operation at
the La Grange plant. Coating operations at the La Grange
facility are subject to 215.204(k) limitations, because the La
Grange facility does not qualify for the 215.206 exemptions.
The engine components which require hi—temp aluminum
coatings, according to EMD, are a turbo exhaust duct (R. at 19;
Ex. 2) and an engine exhaust adaptor (R. at 19; Ex. 3). The
surface areas of the exhaust duct is approximately 15 square
feet, and requires 10 ounces of hi—temp aluminum coating (R. at
19). The surface area of the exhaust adaptor is approximately 6
square feet, and requires 4 ounces of hi—temp aluminum coating
(Id.). Production of engines is such that in 1986 EMD utilized a
total of 65 gallons of hi—temp aluminum coating (R. at 21);
estimated production levels for 1987 would require approximately
40 gallons of coating (R. at 33).
1 Although actually located in McCook, Illinois, this facility is
generally referred to in the record as the EMD—La Grange
facility, and is identified thereby herein.
2 Prior to December 31, 1986, EMD conducted hi—temp aluminum
coating operations at both Illinois plants. However, as of that
date EMD transferred all hi—temp aluminum operations to the
Chicago plant due to the compliance problems associated with
continuing operations at the La Grange plant (R. at 18).
76-55
—3—
COMPLIANCE EFFORTS AND HARDSHIP
EMD has explored two avenues of compliance: substitution of
an alternative, compliant coating; and, changes in control
technology. With respect to using only compliant coatings, EMD
has been able to identify compliant coatings for all coatings
used or contemplated for use at its La Grange facility with the
exception of the hi—temp aluminum coating (Ex. 4, p. 3).
Difficulties encountered with identifying an alternative to the
hi—temp aluminum coating are associated with the demanding
requirements of the coating and the small quantities used.
After the locomotive is fully assembled, the exhaust duct
and adaptor are located inside the locomotive hood where they are
exposed to operating temperatures up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit
(R. at 19—20). Therefore, the coating is required to be able to
withstand unusually high temperatures. Additionally, the coating
must resist rust and corrosion (R. at 20).
EMD contends that no product other than that currently used
is able to meet these performance standards while simultaneously
meeting the VOC limit of 4.3 lbs/gal. EMD notes that it has
tested one possible alternative, which has a VOC content of 4.7
lbs/gal and represents the lowest VOC hi—temp coating provided by
END’s principal supplier (R. at 25). However, in addition to the
problem that this alternative is itself not a compliant coating,
the test showed the alternative to be too thick to allow spray
application. As a possible remedy, the supplier suggested
thinning of the alternative coating with solvents before
application. 7~his, however, would further increase the VOC
content of the alternative and eliminate most or all of the
advantage the alternative might afford (Id.).
EMD has also explored possible alternative coatings marketed
by other suppliers. Of three possibilities offered, two have VOC
contents above 6 lbs/gal and the third cannot withstand
temperatures above 300 F. (Id.). Thus, none of the three
constitutes a viable alternative.
EMD additionally contends that there has been little
incentive for suppliers to formulate alternative coatings given
the small market (R. at 24). For this reason, EMD believes that
a compliant hi—temp coating is not likely to be forthcoming (R.
at 26).
Three changes in control technology which EMD has explored
are: improvements in coating transfer efficiency; carbon
adsorption—incineration; and, the use of emission reduction
credits.
76-56
—4—
Several alternative application methods have been tested by
EMD in an attempt to improve transfer efficiency. However, EMD
contends that no alternative method has yet shown itself to be
more efficient than the conventional air spray currently utilized
(R. at 27).
Carbon adsorption/incineration is considered by EMD to be
technically infeasible, environmentally unsound, and economically
unreasonable. VOC concentrations in the paint booth during hi—
temp coating operations are asserted to be less than 1 part per
million, which is below the level at which carbon adsorption can
effectively remove VOCs (R. at 28—9). Thus, carbon adsorption is
not a technically feasible control process. The incineration
portion of the carbon adsorption/incineration process would also
require a gas or coal burner, which would produce greater
quantities of emissions (admittedly of pollutants other than VOC)
than it would eliminate (R. at 29—30). Lastly, EMD contends that
carbon adsorption would be excessively costly. EMD estimates the
capital and operating costs over a ten—year period to be $3.5
million (R.. at 30). Over this same period EMD estimates that a
carbon adsorption system would be capable of removing only about
one ton of VOC, at a total cost thusly of $3.5 million per ton
(R.. at 30).
The third control technology option, that of using emission
reduction credits, is contended by EMD to be unworkable given the
particular method of operation of the hi—temp aluminum coating
activity. EMD contends that it cannot meet the requirement that
emission reduction credits be enforceable. This is because the
hi—temp coating occurs on an irregular schedule as needs arise.
EMD therefore concludes that “it would be difficult for us to
demonstrate compliance using offsets on a daily, weekly basis, et
cetera. Expected production cutbacks this year will make
enforceability even less realistic” (R. at 31).
Lastly, EMD has considered its alternatives under the
assumption that its requested relief would be denied. It would
be impossible to produce the locomotive engines without the
coated ducts and adaptors. Thus, it would be necessary for EMD
to job out the coating operations. In addition to problems with
quality control and service that this action would entail, EMD
contends that a small private coating facility which is not
subject to VOC limitations might well produce greater emissions
for the same operations that would EMD. Thus, EMD contends that
there might be a net negative environmental consequence (R.. at
36—43).
Based on the above
considerations, EMD concludes, and the
Agency agrees, that Petitioner would suffer arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship if denied the requested relief.
76.57
—5—
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Total VOC emissions related to EMD’s hi—temp aluminum
coating operation in 1986 was 0.195 tons or 391 pounds (65 gal x
6.01 lbs/gal). 1987 production estimates, in which 40 gallons of
hi—temp aluminum coating are forecast for use, would produce 0.12
tons or 240 pounds of emissions. These figures contrast with the
401.8 tons/year allowable VOC emissions for the entire La Grange
facility. An additional perspective is that the hi—temp aluminum
coating at the La Grange facility represents about one—tenth of
one percent of the total coatings used (R. at 34). For these
reasons, EMD contends, and the Agency concurs, that environmental
impact over the period of the requested variance would be small.
RULEMAKING ACTIVITY
As noted above, there are currently two proposals before the
Board, under docket R86—36, to amend Section 215.204(k) in
manners which would alter the emissions limit at issue here. One
proposal, as offered by the Agency, would decrease the maximum
allowable VOC content for top coating of heavy off—highway
vehicle products from the present 4.3 lbs/gal to 3.5 lbs/gal,
pursuant to a United States Environmental Protection Agency
proposal to disapprove the present 4.3 lbs/gal limitation. The
second proposal, offered by END, would provide an exception for
hi—temp aluminum coatings and set a hi—temp aluminum limit of 6.0
lbs/gal.
The Board wishes to emphasize, as noted by the Agency (P. at
14), that the instant matter is an action separate from that of
the rulemaking, and that the conclusions based on the record
herein do not necessarily reflect on the conclusions which might
follow from the record in the rulemaking. Furthermore, the Board
believes that it is appropriate to reiterate that the prospect of
future rulemaking does not constitute grounds for reaching a
determination of arbitrary or unreasonable hardship:
If the speculative prospect of future changes in the
law were to constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship, then the law itself would be emasculated
with variances, as there is always the prospect for
future change. Citizens Utilities Company of
Illinois v. Pollution Control Board, 134 Ill. App. 3d
111, 115 (3rd Dist. 1985).
CONCLUS ION
The Board finds that EMD would incur an
arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship if required to comply immediately with the
regulation in question. This, in combination with the limited
76.58
—6—
duration of the requested relief and the minimal environmental
impact expected over the duration of the variance, pursuade the
Board that the requested relief should be granted.
The Board takes this action in
spite of a question regarding
the presence of a compliance plan. In the normal consideration
of variances, it is incumbent upon Petitioner to provide a
specific compliance schedule, upon completion of which Petitioner
can reasonably be expected to be in compliance with the
regulation(s) in question. Such is absent here. Nevertheless,
the Board believes that it is reasonable to make the rare
exception here given the limited duration of the variance, the
minimal environmental impact, and END’S good faith efforts to
remain in compliance.
Neither END nor the Agency has proposed any conditions
associated with the granting of the variance, other than the term
and termination conditions. However, the Board believes that it
is appropriate to condition the variance upon END’s sole use of a
hi—temp coating which has a VOC content not significantly higher
than that presently used. The Board will add such condition.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
General Motors Corporation, Electro—Motive Division, is
hereby granted variance from 35 Ill.. ~Adm. Code 215.204(k),
effective this~date, for its High Temperature Aluminum top
coating operation conducted at its END—La Grange facility,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Variance shall terminate on December 31, 1987,
or upon issuance by the Board of a Final Order
in R86—36, whichever occurs first.
2. During the pendancy of the variance Petitioner
shall use no coating in the operation in
question which has a VOC content greater than
6.1 pounds per gallon.
3. Within forty—five (45) days after the date of
variance order, Petitioner shall execute a
certification of acceptance of this variance by
which it agrees to be bound by its terms and
conditions. Such certification shall be sent to
the Agency’s attorney of record. This forty—
five (45) day period shall be held in abeyance
for any period during which this matter is
appealed. The form of the certification shall
be substantially as follows:
76-59
—7—
CERTIFICATION
General Motors Corporation hereby accepts and agrees to be
bound by all terms and conditions of the Order of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board in PCB 86—195 dated February 19, 1987.
General Motors Corporation
By: __________________________
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member Bill Forcade concurred.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abpve Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
/~
day of ~
,
1987, by a vote
of
(~-O
.
/~
Dorothy~1 M/ Gunn,
~
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
76-60