ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 20, 1986

MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 83—18

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR.

ROY M. HARSCH APPEARED ON BEHALF OF MODINE MANUFACTURING

COMPANY.

MR. JOSEPH

R.

PODLEWSKI, JR., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.

C.

Flemal):

This matter comes before

the Board upon a Petition for

Variance

filed by Modine Manufacturing Company (“Modine”)

on

February

9,

1983.

In the more than three years that this matter

has been

before

the Board

there have been multiple filings by

Modine,

including amended petitions filed on August

31, 1984,

April

23, 1985,

and October

16,

1985.

The Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (“Agency”)

has similarly made multiple filings,

including recommendations

filed on May 2,

1983, December

5, 1985,

and March

3,

1986.

Hearing was held

in Cary,

Illinois, on

January 30,

1986.

As the matter presently stands before

the Board, Modine

requests variance until December

31, 1987,

from the volatile

organic material

(VOM)

emissions limitations for manufacturing

plants involving extreme performance coatings contained

in 35

Ill.

Adin.

Code 215.204(j)(3).

Alternatively, Modine requests

that the Board determine that Modine

is

in compliance with 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 215.204(j)(3) or that the Board determine

that 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 215.204(j)(3) does not apply to Modine’s

operations.

In

its Second Amended Variance Recommendation,

filed March

3,

1986,

the Agency recommends that variance be granted subject

to conditions.

On May 20, 1986,

Modine filed

a motion for leave

to file instanter

a Response

to Agency Second Amended Variance

Recommendation.

That motion

is granted.

On May 28, 1986 the

Agency filed

a motion

to strike Petitioner’s response

to Second

Amended Variance Recommendation or,

in the alternative,

for leave

to file

a reply

to Petitioner’s Response

to Agency Second Amended

70-219

---

—2—

Variance Recommendation.

On June

5, 1986,

the Board granted the

Agency leave

to file the reply,

and said reply was filed on June

16,

1986.

By the same June

5,

1986 Order

the Board denied

Modine’s June

4,

1986 motion for leave

to file

a response

to the

Agency’s May 28, 1986 motion.

On June

16,

1986 Modine

filed

a

motion for leave

to file response to Respondent’s Reply

to

Petitioner’S Response

to Second Amended Variance

Recommendation.

For the same reasons expressed in the Board’s

June

5, 1986 Order,

that motion

is denied.

For the reasons discussed below,

the Board

finds that Modine

will suffer arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if denied

the

requested variance.

Therefore,

variance will

be granted, subject

to conditions.

BACKGROUND

Modine owns and operates

a manufacturing plant located

in

Ringwood, McHenry County,

Illinois;

this plant

is referred

to

within the record both as the Mdllenry plant and

as the Ringwood

plant.

The plant employees 191 people with an annual payroll of

$2.5 million

(R.

at 19).

McHenry County

is presently in

attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

ozone;

it

is adjacent

to Lake and Cook Counties, both of which

are non—attainment counties.

At

its McHenry facility Modine manufactures aluminum air

conditioning evaporators and condensers

for vehicular

application.

Production requirements for the two products

differ.

As presently manufactured and

as specifically related to

VOM matters,

the evaporators do not require painting;

the

condensers do.

The condenser paint

coatings presently used are

conventional solvent—based, extreme performance coatings

formulated

to exhibit exceptional

resistance to water, salt

spray,

hot oil, ethylene glycol, bleed—through, chipping and

peeling,

and other deteriorating factors.

Over

288 different.

sizes

and types of condensers are manufactured

at the McHenry

plant.

The total VOM content of the paint and solvent presently

applied by Modine

to its condensers

is contended by Modine

to be

5.4 pounds per gallon

(lb/gal)

of coating

(R.

at 26).

The Agency

cites

this figure as 5.54 lbs/gal

(Agency Amended Variance

Recommendation,

Dec.

5,

1985, par.

3).

The limit identified

in

2l5.204(j)(3)

is 3.5 lb/gal.

Thus,

the applied coating and

standard difference

is 1.9 lb/gal

to 2.04 lb/gal.

There

is also some disparity in the data presented on the

annual VOM emissions of

the Mcilenry plant.

At various places

in

the record

it

is cited as being between 47.99 tons/yr

(R.

at

41)

and 95 tons/yr

(R.

at

54);

in comments submitted

to the Board on

August 26, 1982 it was cited

as

57 tons/yr

and in the original

petition in PCB 83—18

as

62 tons/yr.

Some of this difference

is

apparently related

to variation in annual production at

the

70.220

---

—3—

McHenry plant

(R.

at 53—4).

It would appear that the most

reasonable estimate of annual emissions over the period of the

requested variance would be

75 tons/yr, which

is the apparent

calendar year

1985 emission rate

(R.

at

54).

COMPLIANCE

Modine has considered a number of compliance alternatives.

Some

of these have been rejected and others

remain under

consideration.

Rejected Compliance Alternatives

Modine contends that installation of VOM control systems

would

be economically unreasonable.

Modine estimates that

control

system capital costs would exceed $500,000 and operating

costs would

range between $99,000 and $177,000

(Agency 2nd

Amended Variance Recommendation, March

3, 1986, par.

8).

Assuming

that

a control system could eliminate one—half of

the

facility’s VOM emissions,

this is equivalent to $9,000

to $22,000

per ton

of VOM removed for installation and $3,700

to $6,600 per

ton

of VOM removed

for operation

(R.

at 25,

66—7).

Modine also contends

that,

despite diligent search,

it has

been unable

to find

a technologically feasible solvent—based

substitute coating which would allow it

to meet

the 3.5 lbs/gal

limitation.

Modine believes that solvent—based coatings meeting

a 3.5 lb/gal limitation, which are generally referred to as “high

solids” coatings,

are unacceptable

for Modine’s condenser

applications.

Specifically,

high solids coatings reduce

to

a

prohibitive degree

the

heat transfer efficiency of the condensers

(R.

at 22—23,

59).

As an alternative

to abandoning solvent—based coatings

entirely, Modine has investigated application

of an inorganic

corrosion preventive coating prior

to painting.

This alternative

would still require use of high VOM coatings,

but would utilize

less paint for

an equivalent amount

of protection, and thus

reduce

total emissions.

Assuming that one—half of the VOM

emission could

be eliminated,

Modine estimates that this system

would cost approximately $13,000 per ton of VOM reduction for

installation and

an additional

$10,000 per ton for operation.

On

this basis Modine concludes that

it is an economically

unreasonable alternative

(R.

at

27).

Waterborne coatings have also been investigated by Modine.

Such coatings are available and produce an appropriate coating

quality

(R.

at

24).

As initially conceived,

it was believed that

waterborne coatings would require application via electro—

deposition (“EDP~).

Modine contends that EDP installation and

operating costs, estimated as before, would be

$36,000 per ton of

VOM removed for installation and $10,000 per ton

of VOM removed

for operation.

This

is considered by Modine

to

be economically

unreasonable

(R.

at 24).

70-221

---

—4—

Compliance Alternatives Under Consideration

Modine has committed itself

(2nd Amend.

Pet., par.

16;

R at

37)

to a series of compliance alternatives, each of which would

bring Petitioner

into compliance by December 31,

1987.

These

are:

1)

Converting condenser production to

a new process, termed

the Nocolok* process, which would eliminate the need for

painting.

2)

Moving

the condenser production out of the McHenry plant

and replacing

it with

a new product line which does not

require painting.

3)

Continuing condenser production with the present process,

the Alfuse process,

but converting

to

a compliance coating.

Modine also presented

at hearing

a fourth “compliance

alternative” which is

to ~proceed with the challenge

to the

applicability

of the RACT rules

in question only

if Modine

encounters some unforeseen problem with the paint system

presently being studied”

(R.

at

37).

The Board

notes

that this

is not properly considered

a compliance alternative.

Recently Modine has committed

to installation of

the Nocolok

production process at its McHenry facility.

Because

the Nocolok

process does not require painting of

a finished product,

it

solves

or greatly reduces environmental concerns

related not only

to VOM,

but also

to production and disposal

of solid wastes and

process waste waters

(R.

at 35—6).

The Nocolok process will be

operative at the McHenry facility by August, 1986

(R.

at

36).

At

that time all evaporator production will utilize the process.

Modine

believes that the more exacting requirements for condenser

production might also be met through the Nocolok process.

However, Modine contends that it

req~,iiresuntil December

31,

1987,

to evaluate economics and customer demand

(R.

at 37)

and

to

gain appropriate production experience with Nocolok

(R.

at

37—8)

befor& this determination and its implementation can be made.

.As previously noted, Modine has considered waterborne

coatings applied via EDP and rejected this alternative as

economically unreasonable.

However,

subsequent

investigation has

allowed Modine

to identify

a waterborne coating which can be

applied using the present production process, would allow

compliance,

and might

be economically reasonable.

This process

has

in fact been installed and

is being utilized

in

a Modine

facility located

in Clinton, Tennessee,

which produces condensers

using ~thesame Alfuse process presently employed

at McHenry

(R.

*The Board

notes that this process

is also referred

to

in some

portions of the record under the variant spelling “Nocoloc”.

70.222

---

—5—

at 27—8).

Modine elected

to

install this somewhat untested

process at the Clinton plant rather than the McHenry plant due to

lesser

technical and economic problems at Clinton

(R.

at 27—

33).

Production

at the Clinton plant has indeed encountered

difficulties with

the waterborne coating

(R.

at 28, 45—8),

and

Modine believes that it will require the time period

of the

variance

to determine whether these difficulties could preclude

adoption of the new coating at McHenry.

HARDSHIP AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Absent grant of the requested

variance, Modine would be

:equired

to come into immediate compliance with

215.204(j)(3).

Modine believes that the most cost effective method of

iinniediate

compliance would be adaption

of the McHenry facility to use of

a

waterborne compliant coating

for

the Alfuse condenser process.

It

is estimated that this adaption would involve an investment of

approximately $200,000

(R.

at 40,

75,

80).

Modine would prefer

to defer

this adaption on the belief that there

is

a

significantly likelihood

that the Alfuse process will

be rendered

obsolete by the Nocolok process,

or that condenser production

will

be eliminated

at the McHenry facility.

Modine further

asserts that additional data collection and analysis

is required

before decision on the proper alternative can be made.

Accordingly, Modine contends that immediate expenditure

of the

$200,000 would cause

a financial hardship

(R.

at

40).

Given that

an immediate choice among the compliance alternatives would

involve

a substantial capital

investment which

could

be

jeopardized

in the absence

of data allowing for

an informed

management decision,

the Board

finds

that hardship does exist.

Modine’s McHenry facility

is located

in McHenry County,

an

attainment area for ozone.

The Board notes that

it

is aware

that

airborne substances,

though not the cause of violations

at the

location emitted,

can be transported

and ultimately contribute

to

violations observed

in other areas.

However, given

the volume of

VOM Modine will

be emitting during

the variance period,

the Board

finds jhat

the anticipated environmental impact over the period

of the variance

is not large relative

to the cost

of immediate

compliance.

The Board therefore finds

that hardship would

be

arbitrary or unreasonable.

CONDITIONS

In

its Second Amended Variance Recommendation the Agency

recommends grant of the requested variance, subject to

conditions.

The Board agrees that many

of the conditions are

appropriate and accordingly will condition the grant of variance

upon them.

However,

the Board

finds

inappropriate those portions

of

the Agency’s recommended conditions which would require Modine

to divulge business information not pertinent

to

a determination

of compliance with the Board’s Rules and Regulations

or variance

thereto.

These

include

the matters of

reporting economic and

customer demand associated with the Nocolok evaporator

70.223

---

—6—

manufacturing process noted

in the Agency’s recommended

conditions B and C.

Accordingly, such conditions

shall not be

imposed.

However,

the Board would expect that the absence

of

these conditions will not be a cause of delay in Modine’s

attainment

of compliance

or of failure

of Modine to meet any of

the other conditions imposed

in the Order.

This Opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings of

fact and

conclusions of law

in this matter.

ORDER

Modine Manufacturing Company

is hereby granted variance from

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 2l5.204(j)(3) for

the condenser coating line at

its plant located at Ringwood,

Mcflenry County,

Illinois,

subject

to the following conditions:

1.

Variance shall

be effective this date and shall

extend

through December 31, 1987.

2.

No later than April

30, 1987,

Modine shall

elect

to

achieve compliance with the VOM emission limitation of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 2l5.204(j)(3)

by implementing one of

the

following three compliance options:

a.

Converting condenser production to

the Nocolok

process;

or

b.

Moving condenser production out

of the Ringwood

plant and replacing it with a new product line

using Nocolok;

or

c.

Keeping the existing condenser line using

the

Alfuse process and utilizing

a compliance coating.

Within five

(5) working days of

this compliance decision

Modine shall notify the Agency at the addresses provided

in Condition

4

of

the compliance option chosen.

All

relevant information concerning

the chosen compliance

approach and

a proposed compliance schedule shall be

submitted

to the Agency within thirty

(30) days of the

decision.

3.

Until

the decision described in Condition

2 is made,

Modine shall continue

its efforts to achieve compliance

with the VOM emissions limitation

of

35

Iii. Adm. Code

2l5.204(j)(3) through the utilization of compliance

paints on its condenser coating

line.

These efforts

shall

include

an investigation into the feasibility of

using any compliance coating which

the Agency brings

to

Modine’s attention via written communication during this

period.

70.224

---

—7—

4.

Beginning October

15, 1986,

and

at two—month intervals

thereafter until

and including April

15, 1987,

Modine

shall

submit reports

to the Agency.

Such reports shall

specify the status of product production at the Ringwood

plant using

the Nocolok process and

shall give

consideration to the manner

in which the condenser

coating

line may be brought into compliance with

35

Ill.

Adrn. Code 215.204(j)(3) by use of the Nocolok process.

Additionally,

the reports shall describe progress made

in

utilization of the compliance coatings referred to

in

Condition

3.

The reports shall also include monthly

information

on the number of condensers manufactured,

the

quantity and solvent content of all coatings applied

to

assembled condensers during the

reporting period,

and

monthly VOM emission data from the condenser painting

process.

The reports shall be submitted

to the Agency at

the following addresses:

1.

Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

2.

Manager, Field Operations Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1701 South First Avenue

Suite

600

Maywood,

Illinois 60153

5.

No later than ninety

(90) days prior

to the

initiation of

construction of either a compliance paint system or some

other system designed to bring VOM emissions

from its

condenser coating line into compliance with 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 215.204(j)(3), Modine shall submit an application

for

a construction permit

for that system

in accordance

with 35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code

201.152.

Construction shall not

be begun until

a construction permit

is issued.

Operation of either system is not allowed until an

operating permit

is

issued by the Agency, pursuant to

Section 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 201.143.

6.

The Agency shall

be notified

in writing at the addresses

provided

in condition

4 above of any stack

tests

to be

performed

at

the

facility at least five

(5) working days

before such stack tests take place.

Agency personnel may

witness any such test.

7.

During

the period

of this variance VOM emission levels

shall not increase

to more than representative 1984

levels.

70.225

---

—8—

8.

Within forty—five

(45) days after

the date

of the Board

Order

the Petitioner

shall execute and send

to:

Mr.

Joseph

R. Podlewski,

Jr.

Enforcement Attorney

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1701 5. First Avenue

Maywood, Illinois 60153

a certificate of acceptance of this variance

by which

it

agrees

to be bound by its terms and conditions.

This

forty—five

(45) day period shall

be held

in abeyance for

any period

for which this matter

is appealed.

The form

of

the certification shall

be

as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We),

—,

having read the

Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

in PCB 83—18,

dated June

20, 1986, understand and accept

the said Order,

realizing that such acceptance

renders all terms and conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

Petitioner

~‘:

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

J.D.

Durnelle and B.

Forcade

concurred.

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion an

Order was

adopted on

the ______________________ day of

____________,

1986,

by

a vote of

_____________

Dorothy

M. G~nn,Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

70-226