ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BCA.BD

February 20, 1985

PRECISION COATINGS,

INC~,

PROTECTION AGENCY,

~spondent~

MR~ JOHN

VOELPEL

(HONIGMAN,

MILLER, SCN~.RT~

APPE~.~3D

ON

BEHALF OF

PETITIONER; AND

MS~

BOBELLA

GLATZ APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

OPINION

AND ORDER O~THE BOARD (BY J D Dumelle):

This

matter comes before the Board on the August

3, 1984,

petition for vr:riance filed by Precision Coatings,

Inca

(PCI)

as

amended

on Sep’ ~mber 17, 1984~

The

am~ndmentwas

withdrawn on

December

3, I9~

~CI has questioned the app1ic~bi1ity

of Rule

205(n) (1)

(c)

o chapter 2: Air Pollution*, to its film

coating

operation

at S:

:ing Valley, and has requested

a

variance unt:I1

June 1, 1985~

fy that date an emission control unit with an

efficiency

of 90 will allegedly be operationaL On

November 19,

1984, the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) filed

a recommendation

that a variance for Machine No.

2 emissions be

granted~ A

hearing was hE~1dOn November 28, 1984.

PCI owns and operates a plant located in Spring

Valley,

Bureau

County.

Bureau County is an attainment county

for

ozone.

The plant has two coating machines in operation

(Machine

No.

1 and Machine No.

2)~

Polyester plastic film is coated with

as

many as

six different coatings, depending upon the final

use

of

the

film, The facility was built in 1980, and until August,

*PCI uses the .~2e

~

~

~.

~

Chapte ~L.

The

Board

will, how~v~r,~e Lhe ~ew codified sec~ion numbering

system.

The codification of applicable rules to 35 Ill.

Adm,

Code

is

as

follows:

Old Rule

New Section

205(n) (1) (c)

215,204(c)

201

211.122

---

1983, was

operating without any permits (Re~. 2). Sect~or

215~204(c)

requires that the Volatile Orgar

~m~und (VOC)

content for

paper coating shall have an upp~

al

~

Of

2. ID

VOC/gal.

Section 2ll.1~2defines paper coating as “the

application

of a coating material to paper or pressure

sensitive

tapes, regardless

of substrate, including web coating on plastic

fibers

and decorative coatings or metal foil,”

In its

original

petition and at hearing, PCI argued

that the

2.9 lb VOC/gal

requirement for “paper coating” does not

include

their coating

process because the substrate used

is plastic film

(R. 17—19).

This arqument is detailed in Exhibit

“A”

of

the

original

variance pc. tion,

PCI

essentially argues that

the

phrase

“regardless substrate” modifies “pressure

sens~tive

tapes” and does

not

r

dify “paper.~ ~hus

~rce the material

which PCI coats is

not paper

or tape,

J~

~.

~or~ ~re

~monly

defined, PCI

argues that Section 2l5.2J

c)

i~ ina~~icdble

t~

its operation.

The Agency

has hardly

addressed this

issue

beyond the bald

assertion that

the “coating of plastic

films or tapes in a

facility producing

VOC emissions was

certainly

within the intent

of this definition” (Rec, p. 1), In

fact, the Agency argues that

the question of

applthability is not before the

Board since PCI

“has committed

itself, to some

extent, to the application of this

rule” by bring g a

variance petition

(R. 27).

The quest.

~i

is, however, properly

before the Board, PCI

has clearly ch en to

request variance

to avoid a possible

enforcement ac

on but has not agreed that the rule

from which

variance has been requested is applicable to it, This is a

proper procedural

mechanism which results in the

question of

applicability

of the rule becoming the threshold issue, If

the

rule is inapplicable no

i

tar’e is necessary and no inquiry

into arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship need be made,

In determining the applicability of the rule

in the absence

of citations to

case law or prior Board Opinions, the Board

first

notes

that “acts which may be c3assed as in the interest of

the

public

welfare or public h ci h ir~~titled to receive a

liberal

construction”

(3 OAG 2832), Further, the language of

Section

211.122

indicates that the common definition of “paper”

is

inappropriate

in determining ‘~he applicability of Section

215,204(c).

If tb”~ ~ce~mondeft iition were presumed,

the class of

affected

material’

.

~ inc :d~“web coating”

on plastic

fibers and decore~

~

f’~• ince U~e

are

applications

to ~

p~pernor pressure

S

~itive tape.

Thus,

the phrase

“regardless of substrate,” must refer

to both paper

and to

pressure sensitive tape Despite the fact

that the

definition

of paper coating is adnittedly poorly

drafted and that

PCI~s interpretation of

the definition is understandable,

the

Board finds that the

definition of “paper coating” was

intendc~

to include

the coatiflg of plastic film.

---

Through reformulation, the coating use for Machin’~ No, 1

contains less than

2,9

lb VOC /gai. and is,

~,

jz~

compliance (Rec,

3). Ref rru ~ ton was not

bowe~er,

for coatings

used for M~hir~eNo 2 which has emissions

of 5.7 lb

VOC/gal. It is

for th~ machire that variance is requested.

PCI

has

proposed to b

i.

g Mach ne No. 2 into compliance

by

installing a thermal oxidizer c~hichhas proven ir ~ts

Michigan

plant to be approximately 9 elfic~ntin reducing VOC

emissions.

This would re~uL in emissions of 0,57 lb

VOC/gal,

On September 5,

1984, tie Agency issued a construction

permit for

the oxidizer

and recommend~that variance be granted until

June

1, 1985,

which hould allow PCI the necessary ~ime for

construction

anci installation PC~ ~as estimated that eight

months

from ~he time of perrrit issuance t uId e cuff icie~t

(Pet, 4). The additional rronth will

~t

operational

adjustments.

The Board notes that tne c~ordcontains less than a

desirable amount of information regarding either the hardship to

PCI or the environmental impact of granting variance,

In its

petition PCI states that it simply cannot control emissions

before,,,the early portior of the 1985 ~ozone

season,~”and that

requiring comliance

pLio~Lo June 1, 1985, “would impose an

unreasonable h dship on PCI wh Ic providing no environmental

benefit” (Pet,

.

PCI also s’~itesth t since its

plant is

located in an

~ainment area, Lhe ‘requested va.iance

will

impose no sign cant environmental impact on human, plant

and

animal life ir e area” (P t 5

On the othe tand, fi I

~.

res dents testified regarding

what they

believe ~o be dvers~ nvirnmental impacts

resulting

from PCI~soperations. ~

oc~ained of damage to

plants CR.

43, 49 and 50, ~

1 .ed

r~f

damage to the crops

in his fields, pa tt uloriy

ns which he claimed was caused

by emissions from PC (R 43

o her complained of damage to

her

shrubberies and trees

(

,

On July 10, 1984, a

representative fror tie Illin

‘

partment of griculture

inspected the plants (R~

stated that the soybean

damage

appeared to be cI~emia

r

~i

damage, but determined

that

the damage to tie shrubb~

i

tees could i.sve been

due to

natural

causes,

Trichloroacet~.’

mttted from Machine No. 1,

is

sometimes

used as

,

Acc~rding to information

from

PCI, up to

o the ~i.uhber

now

attached to

Mac~

~ci

I. PCi 5eiieves tha~ che

wet scrubber is

not

working properly a d cy be causing mist entrainment,

which

could

be the source ot t~eco Jaitte. It has informed

the

Agency

that it is havi~gstci eats done to determine

TCA

emissions and

is seeking solutions from the manufacturer

of the

scrubber

at this time.

---

The VOC materials t e emissions of laThine No.

2, which

are ethanol,

acetone, rethyl ct~ylketone,

.

~tste. ~nd

methanol,

have a modera d are’~ of toxieit~ ~ i~

~jh

concentrations, Howev~ i

I

etcy states there should not be

any problems

at the cc ual on~cntrationsof these materials

as

emitted from

PCI Addit~onaJy, the VOC mater als are riot

known

to cause

crop damage or dame ~ o caint (Rec, 7), Thus,

it

appears that

any advers’~en

i.

crnertal impact, if it

is caused by

PCI~splant,

results from

st~oiof Machine No, 1

rather than

the machine

for which var~acc requested. Therefore,

the

Board finds that

the envtrot e~ital impact of granting

the

variance

will be miniral.

Emissions for Machine ‘Jo 2 prior to installation of

air

emissicn

equipment would b ~.7 pounds o~VOC per gallon ~f

coating solution

minus wate ; 128 pou~idspet ur VOC max; ~

and 75 pounds

per hour VOC av ije. Tc~r~ v’tic~ penn;

necessary for

constructiot of. ‘~eemission c~tol

unit for

Machine No, 2, a

regenerative type of thermal oxidation

afterburner, has been issu~dby the Agency. The cost of

the

equipment is

estimated to be

$

25,000, Using the 90

control

efficiency stated by the ma~u~acturer,the emissions

of organic

material from Machine N 2 after installation of

the control

equipment will oe approxirrarely 0,6 pounds of VOC

per gallon of

coating soluti n, less water a~’compared to the

regulatory limit

of 2.9 pounds I

VOC per gallo of co-ting solution,

less

water, Appar?

~y, the only compliance

alterna ive is to cease

operations

unt the aftarburne~ has been installed,

The Boar

finds that Mac ire No, 2 is located

in an

attainment area, tiat its cm satons should not cause significant

environmental

harm, and that PCI has committed to

the

installation

of eontro~. eq~iPme~which will bring

emissions to

one fifth of the

fo~rmon’~hsof the

date of

this Order, Ther~fo t Bo~ concludes that denial

of

variance

would resul in a ~‘r~t~ciryor unreasonable

hardship

and

that variance °t uld e

‘sd.

This Opinion co a t

oard~sfindings of fact and

conclusions of law

Precision Co ~

Ereby granted a variance

from

35

Ill, Adm. Code

f~

applies to its Machine

No, 2

located

at its ~

the f

V~’ng

conditions:

1. The van ~tce~ p r ~ June 1, 1985;

2. Coating

material delivered to the coating

applicator

of

Machine No, 2

shall o’~exceed 5,7 lb/gal,

excluding wate,

---

5

3. A thermal

oxidation afterburner shell be installed and

properly operating to

control emissions

‘~echin~No.

by

September 1, 1985; and

4. Within 45 days

of the date of this Order, Precision

Coatings, Inc., shall

execute a Certification of

Acceptance

and Agreement to be bound

to all terms and conditions

of this

variance.

Said Certification

shall be submitted to the

Agency at 2200 Churchill

Road, Springfield, Illinois

62706.

The 45—day period shall

be held in

abeyance

during

any period

that this matter is

being

appealed. The form of said

Certification

shall be as

CERTIFICATION

I, (We),

____

_________

____

,

having

~:

I the

Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board in PCb 84~li,

dated February 20, 1985,

under’ta~d

and accepL

che said Order,

realizing that such

acceptance renders

all terms and conditions

Title

IT SO ORDERED.

Board Member B.

Forcade concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gum,

Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby

certify that the above Qpinion and

Order was

adopted on the

~

day of

~

1985,

by a vote of

~

~hyM,unn,C1erk

/~

P~fl

~YLon Con

‘~j~

Board

t,n

tt~