ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 30, 1988
PINES TRAILER CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 88—10
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
SAM K. GUPTA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
BOBELLA J. GLATZ APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
3.
Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board on an amended Petition
for Variance filed by Pines Trailer Corporation (Pines) on March
7, 1988. Pines originally filed a Petition for Variance on
January 5, 1988. The Board issued an Order on January 21, 1988
stating that the January 5th petition was deficient. In
response, Pines filed the March 7th petition.
Specifically, Pines is seeking variance from 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 215.204(j)(3) and 215.211(b). According to Pines, it is
requesting an “extension’~ for six months, until July 1, 1988, in
which to comply with these regulations. Section 215.204(j)(3)
imposes volatile organic material (VOM) limitations upon certain
coatings which Pines utilizes. Section 215.211(b) provides that
beginning December 31, 1987, these limitations are applicable to
emission sources located in attainment counties that are not
adjacent to non—attainment counties. Pines’ facility is located
within Henry County which falls under 215.211(b) applicability.
In other words, it appears that Pines is requesting that its
variance extend from December 31, 1987 to July 1, 1988. The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its
Recommendation on April 22, 1988. A hearing was held in this
matter on May 24, 1988; no members of the public were present.
On June 30, Pines filed a motion requesting that new
information be considered by the Board in making its
determination. Pines stated that it has found a compliant
coating. It also had a strike during the month of June which
resulted in 16 drums of non—compliant coating remaining in its
inventory. Pines essentially asked that it be allowed to use up
this paint by August 1. In the interest of administrative
economy, the Board will accept this motion and extend the
variance until August 1, 1988. The Board notes that the Agency
90—485
2
has already anticipated that this paint would be used and denying
the motion would create the need to dispose of the paint.
According to Pines’ amended petition, Pines manufactures
“over the highway truck trailers” at its facility located in
Kewanee. The final part of this production process involves the
painting of--these trailers. Pines outlines this operation as
follows:
1. Cleaning of the trailers—steel
components should be free of dirt and
oil.
2. Priming of the components with Epoxy
Ester primer, 1 coat application.
3. Undercoat or tectyl application,
depending upon customer specifications.
4. Top coat primed components, 1 coat
app licat ion.
5. When top coat is tack free, trailers are
moved out.
(Am. Pet., p. 2)
According to a statement submitted by Pines at hearing,
Pines utilized coatings with the following VOM content in 1987:
Undercoat
3.02 lbs/gal
Tectyl
3.65 lbs/gal
Primer M(2 Part)
3.67 lbs/gal
Top Coat (Alkyd Enamel) 3.78 lbs/gal
(Pet. Exh. A)
The applicable standard imposed by Section 2l5.204.(j)(3) is 3.5
lbs/gal of VOM.
In September 1987, Pines developed specifications which
requires the coatings to withstand a 500—hour salt spray test.
Pines states that these specifications were adopted in response
to a large warranty payment that was made to one of Pines’
customers.
Pines asserts that it has been able to utilize a compliant
tectyl and that compliant top coats are now presently
available. Pines claims that the only remaining compliance
problem concerns the primer. Pines also states that one primer
manufacturer is currently conducting tests on primers which would
not only be in compliance with Section 215.204(j)(3) but also
meet Pines’ specifications. Pines intends to use coatings which
pass these tests.
90—486
3
At hearing, Mr. Sam Gupta, Director of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering for Pines stated that Pines would be in
compliance with Board regulations by July 1, 1988. (R. 4). He
further stated:
And if for any reason we cannot meet the
deadline of July 1, yes, we will lower our
specifications and say go to a 400 or a 300—
hour salt spray testing which a lot of
manufacturers have the paint available that
is 3.5 VOC paint and we will use that until
we can find a coating which at the same time
is in compliance plus meets the 500 hour salt
spray.
(R. 9)
Pines recently experienced a large increase in its
production levels. In 1986, 3,200 units were produced, whereas
6090 units were manufactured in 1987. (Am. Pet., Attachment).
Pines employs approximately 300 to 400 people and is the largest
employer in Kewanee. According to Pines, the only method for
compliance is to find appropriate coating which meets the 3.5
lbs/gal standard. Pines also claims that if a variance is
denied, it will either have to shut down, or cut back its
production to pre—1986 levels. According to Pines, “this will
mean a drastic reduction in (its workforce.” (Am. Pet. 6).
The Agency, in its Recommendation, estimates that control
equipment which would provide compliance would cost Pines
$27,660. The Agency claims that Pines’ Petition did not specify
the costs it would incur if forced to use compliant coatings.
(Ag. Rec., p. 5). The Agency’s Recommendation requested that the
variance be denied because of the lack of emission data and the
lack of assurance that compliance would be achieved by July 1,
1988. (Ag. Rec., p. 6).
However, at hearing, the Agency changed its position so that
it now supports a variance for Pines. (R. 6).
At hearing, the Agency provided revised emission
calculations. The calculations show that Pines’ emissions during
the period of variance are less than what the Agency originally
calculated. Under a “worst” case scenario, when Pines is only
producing types of trailer units which require the higher non—
compliant coatings, the Agency calculated that Pines would emit
only 5.8 tons of excess VOM during a six—month variance. When
calculating emissions under more normal operating conditions, the
Agency estimated that Pines would emit only 3.7 tons of VOM over
the allowable limit during a six—month variance. (Resp. Exh. A).
90—487
4
The Agency was also persuaded by Pines’ commitment to use
compliant coatings after July 1, 1988 even if product
specifications must be lowered. (R. 6).
Pines is located in Henry County which is an attainment
county for ozone. According to the Agency, the nearest air
monitor, located in Rock Island County, has not recorded an
ambient air ozone standard exceedance in the past seven years.
Also, the Agency does not believe the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency would disapprove of a variance grant (as a part
of Illinois’ State Implementation Plan) for air quality reasons.
(Ag. Rec. p. 5). Given the minimal amount of emissions in excess
of the allowable limit that has been emitted by Pines in the past
six months and the fact that Pines will be in compliance after
August 1, 1988, the Board finds that the enyironmental impact
resulting from a variance would be minimal.L Pines has already
emitted just about all of the excess emissions upon which it
bases its variance request; a variance grant will not change that
fact.
In light of all the circumstances, the Board finds that to
deny Pines a variance would constitute an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship. Because of the relatively small amount of
excess emissions and imminent compliance by Pines, the Board
finds no reason, in this instance, to subject Pines further to
any liability concerning the time during which Pines has pursued
this variance. As a result, the Board will grant Pines a
variance from January 5, 1988 until August 1, 1988.
Finally, the Board will address its recent variance denial
in Transcraft Corporation v. Illinois Environmental Protection
A9ency, PCB 87—194 (May 5, 1988). Although Transcraft
Corporation (Transcraft) which manufactures platform semitrailers
was also out of compliance with 215.204(j), the facts in that
case are quite distinct from the instant matter. Most
importantly, Transcraft’s compliance plan was solely dependent
upon its coating manufacturers. That is, Transcraft claimed that
it would be in compliance by December 31, 1988; however, it also
stated that it could not be specific as to when the manufacturers
1 In today’s Opinion, the Board is merely addressing the effect
of Pines’ non—compliance with 35 Ill.
Adrn.
Code 2l5.204(j)(3) in
the context of a variance proceeding. The Agency noted in its
Recommendation that it has referred complaints by some of Pines’
workers to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Evidently, the workers complain of lead and other noxious
emissions in the workplace. The Agency states that Pines’
emissions to the atmosphere are not toxic given the amounts that
are released. (Ag. Rec. p. 4). This Opinion should not be
construed in any way as addressing the merits of these workers’
complaints.
9 0—488
5
would develop a compliant coating that would meet Transcraft’s
specifications. In contrast, Pines has provided the Board with a
stronger, date—certain commitment for the use of compliant
coatings. Pines has assured that it would be in compliance six
months earlier than what Transcraft proposed. Also, Transcraft
appears to have been emitting VOM at a rate of approximately 27
tons per year in excess of the allowable limit. This rate of
excess emissions is more than double that of Pines.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Board hereby grants Pines Trailer Corporation (Pines)
variance from 35 Ill. Mm. Code 2l5.204(j)(3) and 215.211(b) from
January 5, 1988 until August 1, 1988 subject to the following
condition:
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order, Pines shall
execute a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be
bound to all terms and conditions of this variance. This
Certification shall be submitted to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency at 2200 Churchill Road, P.O.
Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276, Attn. Bobella Glatz.
This variance will be void if Pines fails to execute and
forward the certificate within the 45 day period. The 45 day
period shall be in abeyance for any period during which the
matter is appealed. The form of the Certification shall be
as follows:
CERTI FICATION
I, (We)
,
hereby
accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 88—10, adopted June
30, 1988.
Petitioner
Authorizied Agent
Title
90—489
6
Date
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1985 ch. 111 1/2 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abov Opinion and Order was
adopted on the ~C’~7~ day of
________________,
1988, by a vote
of _______________________.
/
Dorothy
~
M~7Gunn,
~.
Clerk
/~1~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
90—490