ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 20, 1986

EKCO GLACO CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 86—91

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION   

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

MESSRS. JEFFREY C. FORT AND JAMES J. DeNAPOLI OF MARTIN, CRAIG,

CHESTEP & SONNENSCHEIN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

MR. JOSEPH R. PODLEWSKI, JR. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE

RES PONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board on a June 23, 1986

petition requesting to extend and modify for one year the

variance granted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board)

on June 27, 1985 (PCB 85—29). The Petitioner, Ekco Glaco Corp.

(Ekco) seeks a variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(j)(1),

Emissions Limitations for Manufacturing Plants concerning the

Clear Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating

and Section 215.205, Alternative Emission Limitations. On

September 11, 1986 the Board granted the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s (Agency) Motion for Leave to File Agency

Recommendation Instanter. In the Agency Recommendation, the

Agency recommended that the Board grant the variance to Ekco

subject to certain conditions. A hearing was held on September

23, 1986 in Chicago, Illinois; no members of the public were

present. At the hearing, the Petitioner and Respondent submitted

Joint Exhibit #1 which was admitted by the hearing officer. This

exhibit, entitled “Stipulation” (Stip.), sets forth facts that

are agreed upon by both parties.

Ekco is in the business of manufacturing and reconditioning

commercial bakery pans at a plant located at 1949 North Cicero

Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Ekco manufactures approximately

1,200,000 new pans annually, while it reconditions old pans at a

rate of about 500,000 per year. Ekco’s new pan production

constitutes about 50 percent of the domestic commercial bakery

pan market. The reconditioned pans are utilized by bakeries

within a 200 mile radius of Chicago. The plant employs 300

people. (Stip. p. 1).

While at the plant, 75 percent of the new pans are coated,

whereas all of the reconditioned pans are coated. The coating is

74-103

applied with differing procedures in the new pan department and

the used pan department.

However, each line utilizes the same

type of coating material.

The coating consists of 20 percent

silicone resin and 80 percent solvent which in turn contains

naptha, toluene, propylene, glycol methyle ether, and isobutyl

isobutyrate.

In the new pan line, a reconstituting

solvent is

added to the resin coating.

This reconstituting

solvent contains

VMP naptha, toluene and glycol monoethers. (Stip. p. 2).

The solvent part of the coating and the reconstituting

solvent are both considered volatile organic material (VOM) as

defined under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.122. VOM emissions are

generated by the spray coating operation in the new pan

department and by the spray coating as well as the

preheater/airing operations of the used pan department. In both

departments, the VOM emissions are vented through a stack to the

atmosphere. At present, Ekco has no control on VOM emissions.

(Stip. p. 3) Data on emissions shows the following:

VOC EMISSIONS LBS/YEAR

1983

1985

1986

121,880

152,034

123,848

(pro—rated based

2 quarterly   

on 1 quarterly

samples)       

sample)

(Stip. p. 4)

Ekco’s compliance plan set forth in the original variance

consisted of two phases that would be implemented over a one—year

period. In the first 6—month phase, Ekco was to modify the

process equipment and exhaust system to provide a network for the

capture of VOM. The second phase concerned the actual

installation of afterburners which would be used to incinerate

the captured VOM. (Stip. p. 6) After Ekco was granted its year

long variance on June 27, 1985, it ran into difficulties

implementing its compliance plan. First Ekco’s consultant had

trouble obtaining construction bids for the phase I work. Next,

after being instructed to concentrate on the elimination of spray

leakage (a major aspect of phase I), Ekco’s consultant studied

the problem for 3 months. The consultant’s conclusion, in

December of 1985, was that the whole spray system had to be

redesigned.

Since such an alternative could not be implemented

within the one year time period, Ekco retained a different

consultant. (Stip p. 9).

The second consultant reported to Ekco, in March of 1986,

that phase I could be accomplished by installing a centralized

exhaust fan and an overspray mist in the new pan department.

Ekco approved of the plan in April. However, problems in

obtaining equipment delayed the installation of the necessary

improvements until June of 1986. Ekco then petitioned for this

variance extension. (Stip. p. 10).

74.104

The new compliance plan, proposed with this variance

extension, differs somewhat from the original compliance plan.

This new plan entails modifications only to the new pan line.

Ekco has now decided to take the old pan line out of operation by

June of 1987. The schedule of the new compliance plan provides

that all modifications to the new pan line be completed by

January 1, 1987. These modifications include the installation of

exhaust equipment and an afterburner. (Stip. p. 10) Since the

filing of this petition, Ekco has already completed phase I

modifications as well as submitted to the Agency an application

for a construction permit to install the afterburner. (Stip. p.

11).

Ekco is located in a non—attainment area for ozone.

However, the closest ozone monitor to the Ekco plant did not

record any exceedances of the ozone ambient air quality standards

for the years 1985 and 1986. While Ecko asserts and the Agency

does not dispute that “the plant’s contribution to the overall

Cook County VOM emissions is small,” the Board notes that the

record contains no information on such concerns as VOM

transport. Both parties conclude that “(t)here will be no

significant adverse air quality impact associated with the

granting of the variance extension.” (Stip. p. 12).

Ekco has contended that the variance will need to extend

until June of 1987, when it can discontinue its used pan line.

However, the Agency asserts that if the afterburner installed on

the new pan line, has 75 percent overall VOM reduction

efficiency, Ekco will be able to demonstrate plantwide compliance

according to the internal offset rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code

215.207. That is, once the control equipment is installed on the

new pan line, Ekco will be in compliance regardless of the fact

that the used pan line will operate without any VOM controls

until it is discontinued in June of 1987. (Stip. p. 13).

Since the granting of the first variance, on June 27, 1985,

Ekco has in good faith and with due diligence pursued a

compliance plan. Unfortunately, unforeseen events, delaying the

implementation of the first plan, intervened to require this

petition for an extension. In 1985, the Board found that a year

long variance would cause only a “minimal environmental

detriment.” Now, Ekco needs a variance for less than two months,

because January 1, 1987, is the date when the plant will come

into compliance due to the installation of an afterburner. Given

the above factors, the Board finds that denial of this variance

would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship for

Ekco. Consequently, the Board will grant this variance until

January 1, 1987 subject to the conditions set forth in the

order. The granting of this variance will allow Ekco to continue

its advancement toward compliance with VOM emission limitations.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

74- 105

Order

The Board hereby grants Ekco Glaco a variance from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 215.204(j)(l) and 215.205 from November 20, 1986 to

January 1, 1987, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Ekco Glaco shall use coating materials which have a VOM

content less than or equal to those presently used.

(2) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Ekco

Glaco shall reapply for an operating permit for its

coating lines (I.D. #031 600 FBT, No. 75060010),

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adin. Code 201.157. Any subsequent

application for renewal of this permit, to the extent

that it encompasses operation of the uncontrolled used

pan coating line, shall provide information to the

Agency adequate to demonstrate that the operation of

that line is in compliance pursuant to the internal

offset rule, 35 Ill. Adin. Code 215.207.

(3) Prior to the initiation of construction of any VOM

control system, Ekco Glaco shall timely submit an

application for a construction permit for that system in

accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.152. Construction

shall not be begun 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. Adm. 201.143.

(4) The Agency shall be notified in writing at the address

provided below 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. Notices shall be sent to:

1.  Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62706

2.  Manager, Field Operations Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

1701 South First Avenue

Suite 600

Maywood, Illinois 60153

(5) Within forty—five (45) days after the date of the Board

Order the Petitioner shall execute and send to:

74-106

Mr. Joseph R. Podlewski, Jr.

Enforcement Attorney

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1701 South First Avenue

Suite 600

Maywood, Illinois 60153

A certification of its acceptance of this variance

extension by which it agrees to be bound by its terms

and conditions. This forty—five (45) day period shall

be held in abeyance for any period which this matter is

appealed. The form of the certification shall be as

follows:

CERTIF ICATION

Ekco Glaco Corporation hereby accepts and agrees to be bound

by all terms and conditions of the Order of the Pollution Control

Board in PCB 86—91 dated 

_________________,

1986.

EKCO GLACO CORPORATION

BY: ______________________

As Authorized Agent

Title

IT IS SO ORDERED.

B. Forcade Concurred. J.T. Meyer Dissented.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the ~   

day of 

7? “~ ~

1986, by a vote

of

~

Dorothy M. G~jnn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

74-107