ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
7, 1988
DEL MONTE CORPORATION
(Can
Manufacturing Plant
No.
115),
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 87—147
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR.
JAMES
F. WARCHALL AND MS.
LAURA L.
LEONARD, SIDLEY
& AUSTIN,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.
MR. WILLIAM
D.
INGERSOLL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a Petition for
Variance filed October
1,
1987, by Del Monte Corporation (“Del
Monte”) pertaining
to Del Monte’s Can Manufacturing Plant No.
115
located
in Rochelle, Ogle County.
Del Monte requests variance
through June
30, 1988,
from the can coating limitations found
at
35
Iii. Adm.
Code 215.204(b)(l),
(2), and
(6).
The three coating
limitations
in question pertain
to sheet basecoatings, exterior
basecoatings, and end sealing compound coatings.
Del Monte currently uses coatings which are compliant with
respect to Section 215.204(b).
However,
Del Monte contends that
experience with the compliant coatings has shown them
to provide
a product of unacceptable quality.
Petitioner therefore desires
to revert to the use of non—compliant coatings, and
to achieve
compliance by the alternative methods of use of an afterburner
and internal offsets, pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.205 and
215.207.
Grant of variance would allow Petitioner to use non—
compliant coatings during
the time the afterburner
is being
installed and tested.
On November
9, 1987, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“Agency”)
filed
its recommendation (“Rec.”) that the
variance be granted, subject to conditions.
Hearing was held
in
Rochelle on December 10, 1987.
Several members of the public
attended the hearing, and one, Mr. Henry McDermott, presented
testimony.
On December
14,
1987, Del Monte
filed a Motion for Expedited
Review,
requesting a decision on this matter no later than the
Board’s January
7,
1988, meeting.
That motion
is hereby granted.
85—09
—2—
Petitioner manufactures can bodies and ends for distribution
to various
Del Monte
food processing facilities throughout the
United States.
Approximately
193 people are employed
in the can
manufacturing operation.
An essential process in the manufacture of cans intended
to
contain food
is the application of coatings to the interiors and
exteriors of
the cans.
Interior coatings minimize or prevent
chemical reactions between the can metal and the food,
thus
assuring proper quality of the
food.
Exterior coatings provide
corrosion resistance during food~processingoperations and ensure
an adequate external shelf life for the product.
A further
process consists of adding an end sealing coating compound which
provides a vacuum seal for the assembled cans.
The various
coatings must comply with Federal Food and Drug Administration
and Department of Agriculture regulations and any state
counterparts.
In addition, the coatings must be compatible with
the specific
food product to be stored.
Coatings adequate to protect food products and satisfy
federal and state food packaging requirements historically have
contained relatively high concentrations of volatile organic
material
(“VOM”).
Nevertheless, subsequent
to adoption of 35
Ill. Mm. Code 215.204(b)
Del Monte switched to certain low—VOM
coatings in order
to achieve compliance with that regulation.
Del Monte now believes that the low—VOM coatings provide an
inferior product subject to unacceptable rust, staining,
and,
in
the case of the end sealant, loss of vacuum
(see Exhibits 1A—
Ui).
Del Monte accordingly wishes
to resume
use of
the
conventional higher—VOM coatings, and to achieve compliance by
the alternative method of afterburner
incineration of coatings
emissions coupled with use of internal offsets.
Del Monte has undertaken steps
to procure, install, and
operate the necessary afterburner, and has applied to
the Agency
for the requisite construction permit
(R.
at 17; Ex.
3).
Del
Monte contends that it
is making every effort to expedite
operation of the afterburner, and believes that this may be
achieved as early as April,
1988
(R. at 18).
The afterburner
would receive çmissions from Del Monte’s two existing sheet
coatings 1ines~,and is projected
to have an overall 81
overall
efficiency
(R.
at 19).
Emissions from end seal operations would
not be controlled, but Del Monte contends that it can achieve
compliance through use of an internal offset using
credits from
1 Del Monte also plans
to install
a third coating line which will
be vented
to the afterburner.
Del Monte stipulates
that the new
line will not be used until after
the afterburner
is
in operation
(R. at 17).
The Agency recommends that this stipulation be
included as a condition of the variance
(Rec.
at 7).
85_lO
—3—
reduced emissions after the afterburner
is operational
(R. at 20;
Ex.
6).
Del Monte contends that reversion to conventional coatings
would produce an actual emission of 35.1 tons of VOM over the
four—month period of variance prior
to April,
1988
(R.
at 18).
Thereafter, with the afterburner
in place, annual emissions would
occur at
a rate 154.8 tons/yr less than allowable emissions
(R.
at 19).
Because all of the excess emissions would occur outside
of the ozone season, and because Ogle County
is an ozone—
attainment county, Del Monte contends that the grant of variance
would have miminal environmental
impact.
Del Monte contends that an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship would be
imposed absent a grant of variance on the
grounds of inability to meet quality control
standards, loss of
business due
to customer dissatisfaction,
and potential impact on
the local economy,
in which
Del Monte
is
a major employer.
In
weighing of these factors, the Agency requests the Board
to also
consider Del Monte’s past compliance efforts:
This
is not
a case of a company ignoring regulatory
obligations.
Petitioner did receive some earlier
variance relief.
But, through its diligence,
came
into compliance and has remained in compliance.
Unfortunately, production experience shows that
another compliance technology is more appropriate.
Even now, Petitioner
is not ignoring
its obligation,
but wishes to use coatings which
it knows will achieve
customer satisfaction while installing add—on control
equipment.
(Rec.
at
4)
In addressing
the matter of the consistency of the proposed
variance with federal law, the Agency notes:
The can coating limitations were promulgated
as part
of
the RACT
I proceedings and have been approved by
the USEPA as part of
the Illinois State Implementation
Plan (“SIP”).
Therefore,
a variance granted by the
Board
in this case must be submitted
to the USEPA as a
revision
to the SIP.
Since Petitioner’s plant
is located
in an ozone
attainment area, most of the difficulties
in gaining
approval for RACT relaxations are not present here.
Particularly, the December 31,
1987 deadline of
Section
172 of the Clean Air Act does not apply.
Since the variance would not endanger the maintenance
of the NAAQS
for ozone
in the area,
it
is expected
that the variance would be approvable as
a SIP
revision.
(Rec.
at 3—4)
85—11
—4—
In view of the record presented
in this matter, the Board
finds that Petitioner would
incur
an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship, not justified by the environmental impact,
if variance
were denied.
The Board will accordingly grant the variance,
subject to conditions as recommended by the Agency.
The
conditions
are intended “to see that compliance be achieved as
soon as possible and thereby minimize environmental impact during
the 1988 ozone
season”
(Rec. at 6).
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner,
Del Monte Corporation,
is hereby granted
variance from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 215.204(b) (1), 2l5.204(b)(2), and
2l5.204(b)(6)
for its Can Manufacturing Plant No.
115, subject
to
the following conditions:
1.
Variance shall begin on October
1,
1987, and shall
extend though June 30,
1988.
2.
During the period of variance Petitioner
shall not cause
or allow the emission of volatile organic material to
exceed the following limitations on coating materials,
excluding water, delivered
to the coating applicator:
Sheet basecoat
5.64 lb/gal
Exterior basecoat
4.68 lb/gal
End sealing compound coat
4.0 lb/gal
3.
Within 50 days of this variance order,
and at monthly
intervals thereafter, Petitioner shall submit reports of
all coating usage,
including VOM content, on a daily
basis at its Can Manufacturing Plant No.
115
to the
following:
Variance Compliance Manager
Division of Air Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794—9276
4.
Within 50 days of this variance order,
Petitioner shall
submit
the necessary construction permit applications
for the proposed new coating
line and the afterburner
control equipment.
Within 10 days of the issuance of
these construction permits, Petitioner
shall commence
construction of the afterburner.
If the permit
applications have been made in advance of the
50 day
deadline, and permits have been granted prior
to the
schedule contained •herein, then construction shall
85—12
—5—
commence within
10 days of the issuance of the
construction permits or within 50 days of this variance
order, whichever
is later
in time.
5.
The new coating line shall not be operated until
the
afterburner
is installed and operational.
6.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall execute and forward
to William D. Ingersoll,
Enforcement Programs, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
P.O. Box 19276,
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276,
a Certification of
Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
to all terms and
conditions of this variance.
The 45—day period shall be
held
in abeyance during any period
that this matter
is
being appealed.
Failure
to execute and forward the
Certificate within 45 days renders this variance void
and of no force and effect as a shield against
enforcement of rules from which variance was granted.
The form of said Certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
,
hereby
accept and agree
to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Pollution Control
Board
in PCB 87—147, January 7,
1988.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1985 ch. lll~par. 1041, provides
for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
85—13
—6—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab ye Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
7~
day of
__________________,
1988, by a
Dorothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
85-1 ~