ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 8, 1987
    VAN LEER CONTAINERS, INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 85—227
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by B. Forcade):
    I dissent from today’s action. The primary issue in today’s
    decision is whether the installation of add—on controls (an
    afterburner) would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable
    hardship to Van Leer Containers, Inc. (~VanLeerw). There is no
    question that afterburners can bring Van Leer into compliance and
    that they are technically feasible for Van Leer to install. The
    sole hardship that is claimed relates to the expense associated
    with afterburners.
    Factual information on the cost of afterburners is contained
    in the October 8, 1986, TMSupplement to Facts~filed by Van
    Leer. At paragraph 2(a) (viii), on page 7, Van Leer asserts:
    (viii) The economic study of add—on controls
    is well under way.
    Preliminary
    estimates confirm this as an expense
    (sic) solution, i,e., $4000 to $9000
    per ton in ca~Ttai investment and
    $3100 to $2600 per year per ton in
    operating expenses.
    This statement is in an unverified pleading and contains no
    factual support for its conclusions. At hearing, a witness for
    Van Leer testified the cost of an afterburner is in the range of
    $500,000 CR. 16—17). To accurately appraise whether these costs
    are unreasonable, I would need more detail on construction and
    operating costs of the afterburner and the amount of volatile
    organic material (VOM) which would be destroyed. Only then could
    the cost per ton figure be given any weight. Since Van Leer did
    74.374
    —2—
    not provide this information, I do not believe they have carried
    the burden of demonstrating arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
    and I cannot support the variance. I note that Van Leer’s chief
    competitor has spend $900,000 in capital expenditures for add—on
    controls and $200,000 annually for gas (R. 57) and, by such
    efforts, has achieved compliance. Also, Van Leer is required, by
    this variance, to install add—on controls (afterburners) by
    December 31, 1987, if other options do not lead to compliance by
    that date. These two facts indicate afterburners are a viable
    economic option for Van Leer at the present time to reduce ozone
    precursors.
    I am especially concerned by the Board’s and the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency’s (“Agency”) cavalier treatment
    of the ozone problem in Northern Illinois, as expressed at page
    two, paragraph two of the majority opinion. The commands of the
    Clean Air Act are absolute and adamant. Compliance with the
    ozone standard must be achieved or substantial sums of federal
    funding will be at risk and new industrial growth will be
    curtailed. Illinois does not have a federally approved ozone
    State Implementation Plan (SIP) which will lead to compliance
    with the ozone standard. To secure federal approval and avoid
    sanctions, we must focus on additional VOM reductions. It is a
    woefully inadequate response for this Board or the Agency to
    focus on not causing “any increased problems.” We must focus on
    actions which will substantially reduce the existing problems or
    incur the justifiable wrath of the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency, via the mechanism of SIP disapproval and the
    imposition of sanctions.
    The majority opinion claims, at page two, “further, Van Leer
    must comply with its episode action plan which requires the
    reduction of emissions during periods of high ozone
    concentrations, thereby, mitigating any adverse health
    effects.” The only requirement of Van Leer’s Episode Action Plan
    (Pet., Ex. F) is that it completely shuts down within 60 minutes
    of notification of a red alert. The red alert level is 0.30 ppm
    ozone. Thus, so long as ozone concentrations remain at 0.29 ppm
    or lower, no emission reductions can be required of Van Leer. I
    believe there is consensus among health professionals that
    adverse health effects may be detected at ozone levels far below
    0.29 ppm. In fact, recent studies show the 0.12 ppm level may
    need to be reduced to adequately protect public health. Thus, I
    believe the majority has totally ignored (or misstated) the
    potential health impacts of granting this variance.
    74-375
    —3—
    Van Leer emits over 400 tons of VOM per year and, thus, is a
    very very large source. The record shows that, historically, Van
    Leer’s efforts to control VOM emissions have been poor. Central
    Can has been using waterborne coatings since early 1984 (Pub.
    Ex.
    1, pp. 12—13), while Van Leer hopes to complete the switch to
    waterborne coatings by March 30, 1987 (Order, par. 1). Central
    Can implemented afterburners in 1975 and 1983 (Pub. Ex. 1, p.
    16), if all else fails, Van Leer must do so by December 31, 1987
    (Order, par. 8). I do not find this record to be sufficient
    justification to excuse immediate compliance. Accordingly, I
    dissent.
    -~
    ~ll~o~de~
    Member of the Board
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the ~ove Dissenting Opinion was
    submitted on the ~ day of
    ~
    ,
    1987.
    Dorothy M. t3unn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    74-376

    Back to top