ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 9, 1990
LAWRENCE BROTHERS, INC.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 90—74
(Variance Extension)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on a petition for an
extension of a variance filed by Lawrence Brothers, Inc.
(“Lawrence’t). Lawrence initially filed a petition for a variance
in PCB 87—180 and the Board subsequently granted that petition
subject to numerous conditions. In that variance, the Board
ordered Lawrence to be in compliance by October 20, 1990.
Lawrence now petitions the Board for an extension until April 1,
1992. Both the initial variance as well as the current petition
seek relief from the requirements of 35 Iii. Adm. Code
215.204(j), Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating, as it
relates to clear coatings.
The specifics of Lawrence’s operation is well documente~din
the Board’s earlier ruling (PCB 87—180, October 22, 1988) and. is
hereby incorporated by reference. Because, however, the issues
that preclude Lawrence’s compliance remain the same, a brief
explanation is due. Lawrence Operates a plant located in Rock
Falls, Illinois, Whiteside County, which is an attainment area.
Lawrence manufactures a variety of steel door hinges
—
some of
which are brass plated and then clear lacquered. In the process
thereof, these door hinges are dipped and treated with a solvent—
based lacquer before they are dried with the assistance of
heat. As a result, Section 215.204(j) is violated in that this
process uses more than the allowable limit of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) per gallon of solvent.
The crux of Lawrence’s problem lies in the fact that to
date, it has been unable to secure a material which would comport
with the aforementioned regulations and simultaneously maintain
the standards its customers demand.1 The solvent which Lawrence
a-The record indicates that Lawrence Brothers competes with
companies in two other states as well as industry abroad.
Lawrence alleges and the Agency does not dispute that its
competitors are not subject to the rigid laws applicable in
114--71
—2—
currently uses will withstand a 5 salt spray test for a period
of 75 hours without corroding or fading. Anything less will
necessarily detract from the products’ value. From 1987 until
the present, Lawrence has tested a variety of alternative
products in accordance with the original variance, but has yet to
procure a viable substitute which will withstand the demands of
its particular market.
The original variance set up a timeframe for testing,
reporting and ultimately, compliance. Lawrence adhered to every
condition with the exception of compliance. Yet the lack of
achievement in this proceeding was not due to a lack of
diligence. Lawrence has tested over fifty separate products in
its efforts to comply with the pertinent regulations. Moreover,
it has enlisted the aid of a private consultant in addition to an
independent study sanctioned by the University of Illinois
Engineering Department in order to survey its options. Neither
entity was able to formulate a viable compliance plan for
Lawrence short of unreasonable expense.
At the same time, Lawrence’s research and development has
not been without value. Lawrence has investigated an alternative
means of control based on an entirely new and different
technique. This alternative allows the substitution of a zinc
coating for existing brass coating operations followed by
application of a chromate coloring and a water based lacquer.
The record indicates that this new technology will not only bring
LawrenceTs VOC output into compliance, but will also
significantly reduce the toxicity of its water wastestream in
that the process change proposed would altogether alleviate
Lawrence’s use of cyanide. Not surprisingly, then, Lawrence is
eager to implement this change. Yet the zinc coating process
—
although promising
—
contains a monetary setback in that it is
more expens~ve to use. Lawrence is currently seeking to reduce
these costs~and, at the same time, is consulting with its
clients to see if its customer base will incur the incremental
markups inherent in the change.
Another alternative for Lawrence would be to install an
afterburner which would incinerate the solvent emissions after
the coatings process had taken place. While this would reduce
VOC emissions, it would be less ideal than alternative coating
for a variety of reasons. For example, the initial outlay for an
Illinois and therefore are free to continue to employ a solvent
based lacquer.
the private consultant’s letter to Lawrence, Mr.
Gruenberg stated, “I firmly believe that the coatings industry,
in the future,
will be
able to produce a water base polymeric
coating that can be applied
and
stripped
in
your operation, that
will
meet all of their requirements.” Petitioner’s Exhibit C.
il!+-72
—3—
incinerator would be $81,815 with an estimated annual operating
cost of $27,324. In this regard, the University of Illinois
study suggested that the use of heat exchangers connecting the
afterburner to the ovens utilized to dry the hinges would, in the
long—term, pay for itself. Yet the cost of implementing such a
plan would be $203,000 in addition to the aforementioned costs.
Equally important, however, the incinerator proposal is
reactive whereas the alternative coating solution is
preventative. While an incineration unit would assist Lawrence
in complying with Section 215.204(j), the long—term environmental
impact would not be nearly as great if Lawrence is able to employ
a less volatile organic method of coating its hinges in order to
avoid fading and/or corroding. If, for example, the Board allows
Lawrence more time to develop a zinc based coating in conjunction
with a water based solvent, the implementation of an incinerator
would be averted. Moreover, Lawrence’s air emissions as well as
its water wastestream would be much less damaging
environmentally.
Finally, Lawrence meets all of the criteria necessary to
obtain a variance. Petitioner alleges and the Agency agrees that
to deny Lawrence a variance at this juncture would constitute an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. The Board concurs with this~
assessment and finds that for Lawrence to comply with Section
214.204(j) at this juncture would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Act.
Insofar as Lawrence demonstrating that it has progressed
satisfactorily in accordance with Section 36(b) of the Act, the
record contains ample, undisputed testimony that Lawrence has ~
been diligent in its pursuit of a feasible compliance plan.
Further, both the Agency and Lawrence contend that the issuance
of a variance in this case would be consistent with the Clean Air
Act. Due to the fact that Lawrence’s operation is located in an
attainment area coupled with the fact that the nearest monitoring
station has registered no ozone violations, the environmental
effects are relatively negligible.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, Lawrence
Brothers’ Inc.’s Petition for Extension of Variance from Section
215.204(g) until April 1, 1992 is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. Lawrence Brothers shall determine on or before April 9,
1991:
a. the market reception of the zinc coating process;
114—7 3
—4—
b. whether there exists
•
a water based coating
..
which
.
meets the requirements of Section 215.204(j) and
Lawrence Brothers’ corrosion resistance
requirements.
2. Lawrence Brothers shall submit to the Agency any
information pertaining to conditions l.a. and l.b. within ten
(10) days as such becomes available to Lawrence Brothers, but in
no case later than April 9, 1991.
3. At any time during the extended variance period, the
Agency may identify new, clear water based compliant coatings, up
to a maximum of ten (10) in a twelve (12) month period for
Lawrence Brothers to test. After the Agency notifies Lawrence
Brothers of such coatings, Lawrence Brothers shall test the
Agency identified coatings to determine whether the coatings
afford compliance and the degree to which such coatings meet
Lawrence Brothers corrosion resistance specifications. These
tests shall be completed and a report made to the Agency as
quickly as reasonably possible after notice by the Agency to
Lawrence Brothers of the coating’s identity.
4. Lawrence Brothers, upon ascertaining to a reasonable
degree of certainty that the zinc coating proceas produces
product which, including the increased costs, is acceptable on
the market, shall elect to utilize this zinc coating process in
order to achieve compliance.
5. Lawrence Brothers, upon ascertaining to a reasonable
degree of certainty that the zinc coating process produces a
product which is not acceptable on the market, shall proceed
with:
a. utilization of water based coating meeting the
requirements of Section 215.204(j) and Lawrence
Brothers corrosion resistance specifications. This
coating must have been identified and presented to
the Agency prior to April 9, 1991; or,
b. installation of an afterburner.
6. Lawrence Brothers shall verify with documentation to the
Agency that the elected compliance alternative is installed and
operating.
7. Lawrence Brothers shall, in addition to the above
conditions, submit to the Agency quarterly compliance progress
reports.
8. Lawrence Brothers aprees to comply with these conditions
upon grant of the variance extension.
11 !~-~7!~
—5—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
and Order was
Board, hereby cert~ç~hatthe above
adopted on the
___________
day of
__________________,
1990 by
a
voteof
_______________
Ill
S
Control Board
114—75