ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

22, 1985

IN THE MATTER OF:

CORRECTION OF

35

ILL.

ADM,

CODE

)

R83—36

215. 204 (a) (1)

ADOPTED RULE.

FINAL

(T~.LNIONAND ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

UARD (by B.

Forcade):

On December

2,

1983,~ :~ordMotor Company

(“Ford”)

filed

a

petition, with over

200 sk~pportingsignatures,

seeking to have

the Board amend

35

Ill.

Awn.

Code 215.204(a)(1).

That regulation

limits volatile organic material emissions from coatings lines

at

automobile

or light duty truck manufacturing plants

in Cook

County.

The regulation,

which was formerly Rule 205(n)(l)(A)

of

Chapter

2:

Air Pollution, was adopted by the Board on August

23,

1979,

in proceeding R78—3

and

4.

On December

23,

1983,

the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Agency”)

filed a motion to dismiss this rulemaking

claiming that the Board had retained jurisdiction

in R78—3

& 4,

and that the relief Ford was requesting could be addressed with

a

clarifying statement

in the prior rulemaking.

On January

3,

1984,

Ford responded to the Agency’s motion to dismiss,

stating

in essence,

that the mechanism for the change

(clarifying

statement in R78--3

&

4,

or new regulation) was not important so

long as the substance of

the requested change was properly

evaluated by this Board.

The Board, by Order

of October

18,

1979, vacated

its decision

to retain jurisdiction in R78—3 &4.

Since

the Board no longer had jurisdiction

in R78—3

& 4,

the

Agency’s motion to dismiss was denied.

On March

16, 1984,

Ford moved to schedule hearings promptly

in this matter.

The Board held two hearings on May 24,

1984;

the

morning hearing was held

in Chicago,

the afternoon hearing was

held

in Bolingbrook.

On June 4,

1984,

the Department of Energy

and Natural Resources (“DENR”) made

a finding that an Economic

Impact Statement was not necessary in this proceeding.

On July

18, 1984,

the Economic and Technical Advisory Committee concurred

with DENR’s finding.

The public comment period was closed on

June 29,

1984, by Hearing Officer Order.

The Board wishes

to acknowledge the contributions

of David

G. Mueller who was the Hearing Officer and administrative

assistant for this rulema~:i.ng.

63-281

---

—2--

In

a related matter, Ford filed

on August

4,

1983,

a

petition seeking

in part a variance from the same regulation

which

it here petitions

to modify.

On April

27,

1984,

and May

29,

1984,

the Board granted Ford a variance from the applicable

regulation,

pending final Board action in this matter.

A brief overview will simplify the subsequent regulatory

discussion.

In

an effort

to control

the emission of materials

that may lead to ozone

formation,

the Board has adopted several

regulations.

In R78—3

&

4,

35 PCB 246

(August 23,

1979),

the

Board adopted emission limitations that apply to,

inter

alia,

coating lines

for automobile manufacturers and require

installation of reasonably available control technology

(“RACT”).

Those limitations are expressed in pounds of volatile

organic material per gallon of coating, excluding water,

Water

is excluded because

it

is not a VOM.

In developing those

limitations,

the Board relied in part on concepts,

data,

and

assumptions contained

in United Stated Environmental Protection

Act (“USEPA”) publications called control techniqu~guidelines

(*‘CTGISfl).*

One such concept

is transfer efficiency which

is the

ratio

of the amount

of coating solids transferred onto the

surface of

a part or product

to the total amount

of coating

solids

used.

Ford and the Agency assert that the original CTG

presumed a transfer efficiency of 40

and that this Board

relied

on

that transfer efficiency in establishing the relevant

regulation.

Ford and the Agency further assert that

a 40

transfer efficiency

is

incorrect,

that the correct transfer

efficiency

is

30,

and that USEPA has admitted the error.

Ford

has petitioned

for

this regulatory change

to bring

the Board’s

regulation

into conformity with actual practice

in the

industry

and existing USEPA polity,

The existing regulation provides

as follows:

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:

a)

Automobile or Light Duty Truck Manufacturing Plants

1)

In Cook County

kg/i

(lb/gal)

Prime coat

0.14

(1,2)

The CTG at issue here

is USEPA, OIAQPS Guidelines,

Control

of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

—

Volume II:

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,

Automobiles,

and Light—Duty Trucks at

iv and vii

EPA—450/2

77—

008)

(OAQPS No, 1,2—073) May 1977

(hereinafter

“CTG”),

83-262

---

—3—

Prime surfacer coat

0.34

(2.8)

(Board Note:

The prime surfacer

coat

limitation shall not apply

if

by December

31,1982,

a limitation of 0.38 kg/i

(3.2

lb/gal)

is achieved and the prime surfacer

coat

is applied with a transfer efficiency of

not less than 55 percent.)

T~pcoat

0.34

(2.8)

(E~.;;~:dNote:

The limitation shall

not apply

if

December

31,

1985,

a limitation of 0.43

kg/:~ (3.6 lb/gal)

is achieved and the top coat

is ~:~pliedwith a transfer efficiency of not

le~~:than 65 percent.)

:~i.~i

repair coat

0.58

(4.8)

(Bo~~Note:

The limitation

shall not apply

unt:~.December

31,

1985.)

It appears that th.~Ford plant

in Chicago

is

the only

facility subject to 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 2l5.204(a)(l).

At the Ford

facility vehicle bodies first receive

a prime coat by an

electrocoat painting process.

The prime coating operation

is not

at

issue here.

After

baking,

the prime coated vehicles are

conveyed

to the.prime surfacer operation and then

to the

top coat

operation.

These two operations are at issue here.

The prime surfacer coat

is applied

to the vehicles using

hand held conventional (non—electrostatic)

and high voltage

automatic application

(spray) equipment.

This coating

improves

surface appearance

and corrosion protection.

The vehicle

is then

conveyed to a bake oven.

After

the oven the vehicle

is conveyed

to

the topcoat line where enamel

is applied

in

a spray booth by

hand held conventional and electrostatic spray guns.

A second

color may be added later

for tutone vehicles (Stip.

Facts,

6—

13).

Obviously,

if more of the sprayed solids remain on the

vehicle

(a higher transfer efficiency),

then less material

is

needed per vehicle.

Thus,

the VOM content of the material and

the transfer efficiency are key variables

in determining overall

VOM emissions.

For the limitation of concern here, prime surfacer coat and

topcoat,

it is obvious that the Board placed heavy reliance on

the CTG and adopted the CTG limitation of 2.8 lbs VOM,/gallon

(R78—3

&

4, August 23, 1979,

35 PCB at 255, 258).

However,

the

Board did not specifically articulate

the transfer efficiency

that applied to that limitation in either

the regulation or the

opinion.

Likewise,

the

USEPA CTG does not articulate

a specific

transfer efficiency

fox:

the 2,8 lbs VOM/gallon limitation.

63-263

---

—4—

In 1979, USEPA circulated a memorandum stating some past

confusion regarding the appropriate

transfer efficiency and

concluded that a 30

transfer efficiency was appropriate for

2.8

lbs VOM/gallon

(Stip.

Facts,

Ex.

6).

A 1981 policy statement by

USEPA

in the Federal Register

stated that 30

transfer efficiency

was acceptable for 2.8 lbs VOM/gallon (Stip.

Fact,

Ex.

8),

Also,

40 CFR 60.393

(Performance Tests and Compliance Provisions)

provides for

a transfer efficiency of 30

(Stip. Facts,

Ex.

7).

These determinations

by

USEPA were based on extensive

review of

what transfer efficiencies were

in fact achievable for the

automotive

industry.

Relying on this ratio~r1e,the Board

on October

12,

1984,

adopted

a Proposed Rule,

~

Notice amending 35

Ill. Adm. Code

2l5.204(a)(l)

to reflect

a l~3 transfer efficiency.

First notice

of this proposal was publi~b~2d

at

8

Ill. Reg.

21486

on November

2,

1984.

The first notice

:omment period expired on December

17,

1984.

Two comments were received.

The first was from the

Administrative Code Unit peLcaining

to format

for publication

in

the Illinois Register.

These comments did not address any

language

in the regulation.

The second was a one page comment

filed by Ford on November

27,

1984,

supporting adoption of the

proposed rule as written.

By Order

of the Board, dated January 10,

1985,

the proposed

rule was submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

(“JCAR”).

JCAR’s second notice review commenced

on January 17,

1985.

On February 21, 1985, JCAR issued a Certification of No

Objection

to Proposed Rulemaking,

ending

the second notice period

on the rulemaking.

The Board notes

that during the pendancy of this regulatory

matter, USEPA has begun action on the variance proceeding

(PCB

83—105)

which granted Ford a 30

transfer efficiency pending

outcome

of this regulation.

On February 25,

1985, USEPA proposed

to approve the 30

transfer efficiency as a revision

to the State

Implementation Plan for Ozone,

50 FR 7619.

USEPA’s proposal

found

the 30

transfer efficiency to be reasonably available

control

technology

(“RACT”),

This supports the Board’s

determination today that 30

transfer efficiency is appropriate.

ORDER

The Board hereby adopts

the following amendment to 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 2l5.204(a)(l) and instructs the Clerk

of the Board

to

file this rule with the Secretary of State:

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 2l5,204(a)(l)

is amended

as follows:

Section 215.204

Emission Limitations

for Manufacturing

Plants

63-264

---

—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:

a)

Automobile or Light Duty Truck Manufacturing Plants

1)

In Cook County

kg/i

(lb/gal)

Prime coat

0.14

(1.2)

Prime surfacer coat

0.34

(2.8)

~Ei~te~

Ne~e~The pf4fiIe e e~aeeeee&e

eha~ r~etepp~y~

by Beeembet’

~

~tmt~ttOn

e~

9~38kg,’~f3~2

te ael~e,e~ar~tI’~epe4me et~eee~

te

app~ed

wtt1~a ~&.ear~s~er

e

~e4e~ey e~

t~e4;ieee ~hert55 pefeert~T+

(Board Note:

The prime surfacer coat

limitation is based upon

a transfer efficiency

of 30 percent.

The prime surfacer coat

limitation shall not apply until December

31,

1982.)

Top coat

0.34

(2.8)

*Beae~

Ne~ei~ The

m~et~ei’~

~ha~

~

app’y

4~by Beeembee 9~-~

~985,-a ~4m4

t~e,’te~8-4

hg,’~+3i-6 ~b~’ga~+te eehteved

artd ~he ~ep eea~

~e

app~ed

w~h a

~~ene~e~ e?f~e~er~ey

o~ i~e~

~ese ~har~65 peeeertt.)

(Board Note:

The limitation

is based upon

a

transfer efficiency of

30 percent.

The

topcoat limitation

shall not apply until

December

31,

1985.)

Final

repair coat

0.58

(4.8)

(Board Note:

The limitation

shall not apply

until December 31,

1985.)

IT IS SO ORDERED

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on

the

~

day of ______________________,

1985,

by a vote

of

?..-~

~

Dorothy

t4.

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

81-265