ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 27, 1985

•3LACO CORP.,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

PCB 85—29

IGLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR. JOHN R. OLSEN, ESQ., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

U. JOSEPH R. PODLEWSKI, ESQ., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 7. Theodore Meyer):

This matter comes before the Board on a March 5, 1985

variance petition filed by Glaco Corp.. (Gla©o) requesting

variance from the provisions of 35 Ill. Mm. Code 215.204

(emission limitations for metal parts and products coating) and

215.205 (alternative emission limitations) for one year. The

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its.

recommendation that variance be granted subject to conditions on

April 30, 1985. Glaco sought clarification of a condition by

letter filed on May 9, 1985. In response, the Agency filed an

amendment to its variance recommendation on May 17, 1985.

Hearing was held on May 3, 1985; no members of the public

attended.

Glaco manufactures and reconditions commercial bakery pans

at its plant located at 1949 N. Cicero Avenue in Chicago,

Illinois. This plant employs 300 people and manufactures

approximately 1,200,000 new bakery pans per year. This output

represents approximately 50 percent of the commercial bakery pan

market. In addition, approximately 500,000 used bakery pans are

cleaned and reglazed for use at commercial bakeries within a 200—

mile radius of Chicago.

Seventy—five percent of the new and used pans are coated on

two separate coating lines. Although the coating procedure for

new and used pans varies somewhat, the coating formula applied to

both is identical. The coating consists of 20 percent silicone

resin and 80 percent solvent. The solvents contain volatile

organic matter (hereinafter ‘volatile organic compounds or

VOC’).

During new pan production, VOC emissions are generated by

the spray coating operation. These emissions are drawn off by a

duct fan, filtered and vented through a stack to the ambient

atmosphere. During old pan reconditioning, VOC emissions are

---

—2—

generated during the spraying process as well as during the

preheated/curing oven operation. These emissions are also vented

through stacks to atmosphere.

At present, none of the emissions are controlled. According

to the Agency, Glaco’s 1983 emissions were 60.94 tons. The

Agency has made calculations assuming a VOC density of 7.36

lb/gal and stated that Glaco’s allowable VOC emis3:..ons in 1983

were 19.1 tons. Thus, Glaco emitted 41.84 tons SflC over the

allowable.

Glaco’s VOC emtasions are regulated by Section 215.204(jUl

which imposes a VOC emission limitation on clear coating

operations of 4.3 lb/gal. Section 215.205 offers as alternatives

to complying with Section 215.204 the control of vcx emissio;s by

installing either

1) An afterburner system, provided that 7S percent of the

emissions from the coating line and 90

percc’nt

of the n0t—

methane volatile organic material which en’:ers the

afterburner ace oxidized to carbon dioxtda an water; or

2) A system demonstrated to have a control ‘~Uicicrtcy

equivalent to or greater than that provi~dunder the

applicable provision of Section 215.204.

Glaco states that after considerable experimentation it

finda itself unable to

use

a compliance coating and thus, intends

to use an add—on control device. The comp1ian~eprogram proposed

by Glaco consists of two phases. The first phcse involves

modifications to the process equipment and the exhaust systems so

as to result in sufficient capture of s:l’ient to allow an add—on

control device to be effective. The second phase is to design

and implement the control technology. Thermal afterburners are

currently contemplated. Modifications to the ventilation system

and design and installation of the control device will be

accomplished in approximately one year at an estimated total cost

of $250,000.

In assessing the environmental impact of its emissions,

Glaco states that hydrocarbons as a group, and the specific

species emitted by Glaco, have no adverse health and welfare

effects. According to Glaco, toluene, one of its solvent’s

constituepts, ‘completely lacks the potential to cause damage.”

(Pet. at 22). The Agency disputes this contention noting that as

a VOC, toluene is at the very least a precursor of ozone.

Photochemical oxidants, such as ozone, do have well documented

significant adverse health and welfare effects especially upon

the elderly and people with respiratory and cardiac problems.

Ozone is a pulmonary irritant that can impair the normal functior

of the lung.

The Glaco plant is located in Cook County which is

designated a non—attainment area for ozone, a criteria pollutant

84-490

---

—:.~~-

for

which there are both identical state and federal air quality

standards (0.12 ppm (235 ug/m~)). The closest ozone monitor is

located at 220 N. Cannon (Lincoln Park Zoof) approximately 5 miles

from

the plant. In 1983 this monitor reco~rdedone ozone

exceedance; another exceedance was reported in 1984. The Agency

states that it is difficult to determine Glaco’s contribution to

these exceedances in light of the concentration of other

contributing sources, particularly motor vehicles, on ozone

concentrations in the area (Rec. at par. 14). Glaco, however,

estimates that it contributes less than 0.02 percent to Cook

County’s total VOC levels (Pet, at 21).

While the proposed control technology is being implemented,

Glaco intends to attempt to reduce VOC emissions by improving its

present operations. These improvements in~clude adjustment of the

coating sprayers to reduce the rate of coating delivery and

reducing the amount of solvent used for clteaning. The Agency

states that Glaco’s continued efforts to control emissions, as

well as anticipated reductions during modification and

installation of the control technology, will result in no adverse

air quality impact associated with the granting of the variance,

The Board finds that immediate compliance with the VOC

emissions limitation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(j)(l) would

constitute an unreasonable or arbitrary hardship. Unless Glaco

is allowed to operate the plant while its compliance program is

being implemented, Glaco will be compelled to shut down all new

bakery pan manufacturing until compliance is achieved. Although

Glaco has not provided any estimate of the economic loss

occasioned by a one year shut—down, the burden to Glaco in light

of its commitment to achieve compliance within one year through

the utilization of add—on controls, its proposal to reduce

VOC

emissions during the variance, and its minor contribution to

total Cook County VOC emissions, outweigh the minimal

environmental detriment.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Act

(Ill, Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1035), the Board may

grant variances only if they are consistent with the provisions

of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.). Because

Section 215.204(j) has not yet been approved by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) as part of the State

Implementation Plan (“SIP”) to attain and maintain primary and

secondary air quality standards, the Agency does not believe that

the variance requested, if granted, needs to be submitted to the

tJSEPA as a revision to the Illinois SIP. The Agency has,

however, reviewed the petition for variance, the applicable air

quality standards, the most recent Illinois Annual Air Quality

Report and all other information which would normally be

necessary to obtain approval of a revision to the SIP by USEPA,

The Agency believes that if the Board adopts an order consistent

with its recommendation, the order should be approvable as a SIP

revision, If the variance is granted, therefore, the Agency will

submit it as a SIP revision at such time as USEPA approves the

64.491

---

*4—

regulation in question, unless the variance has already expired

by that time~

Finally, at hearing and by letter, Glaco expressed concern

over the Agency’s condition E which required that VOC emission

levels “shall not increase to more than representative 1983

levels” (Rec. at 12). Glaco sought clarification of this terra

stating that they wished to know “whether a 4—5 increase over

1983 would be withi~acceptable limits of the definition

~representative l98~ levels’” (letter of t4ay 9, 1985). By

~irnendmeritto its recommendation, the Agency stated that the

inclusion of condition E was intended to guard against a drastic

increase in VOC emissions but that as much as a 10 percent

increase over 1983 VOC emission levels would be representative

for purposes of condition E. The Board shares Glaco’s concern

that it not be precluded from increasing production levels should

it become necessary to do so. However, the Board does not wish

to exempt Glaco entirely from regulation. Accordingly, the Board

will condition this variance upon the use of coating materials

with a VOC content less than or equal to the presently used

materials. Unfortunately, the facts necessary to set a precise

level are lacking.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Glaco Corp. is hereby granted variance from 35 Ill. Mm. Code

2l5.204(j)(l) and 215.205 for one year subject to the following

conditions:

1. Glaco shall use coating materials which have a VOC

content less than or equal to those presently used.

2~ During the term of this variance, Glaco shall submit

quarterly written reports to the Agency detailing all

progress made in achieving compliance with 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 215,204(j)(l) and 215.205 at its plant located at 1949

t~1. Cicero, Chicago. The first quarterly report will be due

thirty (30) days from the date of the Board order granting

the variance. These quarterly reports shall include

monthly information on the quantity and solvent content of

all new and used bakery pan coatings applied during the

reporting period, as well as monthly VOC emission data from

each coating line. The first quarterly report shall also

include copies of material data sheets showing the

composition (in terms of percentage of solid, solvent and

water) of all coatings and reconstituting solvent used

during the bakery pan coating processes. All of the above

information shall be submitted to the Agency at the

following addresses:

64-492

---

—5—

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

3, cqithin thirty (30) days of the entry of the Board Order

granting a variance, Glaco shall reapply for an operating

permit for its coating lines (I.D O31600ADD, No. 75060010),

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.157.

4. No later than ninety (90) days prior to the initiation

of construction of a VOC control system, Glaco shall submit

an application for a construction permit for that system in

accordance with 35 Ill. Mm. Code 201.152. Construction

shall not begin until a construction permit is issued.

Operation of the emission control system is not allowed

until an operating permit is issued by the Agency, pursuant

to Section 35 Ill. Adnt. 201.143.

5. The Agency shall be notified in writing at the

addresses provided in Condition 1 above of any stack tests

to be performed at the facility at least five working days

before such stack tests take place, Agency personnel may

witness any such test.

6. This variance will expire one year from the date of the

Board Order granting the variance.

7. within forty—five (45) days after the date of this

Order the Petitioner shall execute and send to:

Mr.

.~ioseph R. Podlewski, Jr.

Enforcement Attorney

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

a certification of acceptance of this variance by which it

agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. This forty

(45) day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

wh:i.ch this matter is appealed. The form of the

certification shall be as follows:

64-493

---

—6—

CERTIFICATION

Glaco

Corp. hereby accepts arid agrees to be bound by all terms

an~

conditions of the

Order

of the Pollution Control Board in

?CB ,—29, Jine 27, 1985,

GL)\CO

CORP.

~s

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT

IS SO

ORDERED,

B. Forcade concurred.

1, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above inion and Order

was

adopted

or~the

~

day of

~

1985, by a

?~7.

Dorot.hy N. Gi nn

Illinois Pollution Control Board

64-494