ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 12,
1971
ROESCH
ENAMEL
& MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr~ William
D~ Stiehl,
for
Roesch
Enamel
& Manufacturihg Company
Mr.
Fred
Prillaman,
for
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Opinion
of
the
Board
(by
Mr.
Dumelle)
Roesch
Enamel
and
Manufacturing
Cbmpany,
an
Illinois
corporation
(Roesch)
filed
a
petition
for
variance
on
March
26,
1971
seeking
(1)
to be exempt from the general limitation prescribed
for particulate
emissions in the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution and asking that separate standards be established for por~
celain enameling plants and
(2)
seeking in the alternative
to be granted
a variance from the operation of the emission limitations rules
for
six months from the time ~its proposed
air pollution control system is
approved.
It is the decision of
the •Board that petitioner be granted
a
variance from the operation of Rule 3~3~lll~J
terminating flinety days
from this date subject to certain conditions hereinafter set forth
in this opinion and orderS
Roesch is
a porcelain enamel plant
and fabricatiAg
shop in the
business
of both producing consumer items
and applying
a ceramic coating
to cast iron and steel products on
a contract basis by either spraying
or dipping~
The company is mainly a
job porcelain enamel plant applying
a coating to other producers~products such as stove parts and restaurant
and heating equipment parts~
It also hahdles sope of
its own products
such as cast iron cookware and barbeque pits (R~ll~l2), The subject of
the instant variance request
is the enamel spraying
and attendant opera~
tions rather than any fabricating operations.
The plant for which the
variance
is sought
is located in
a residential
area
of Belleville.
It
is bordered in one direction by retail businesses and residences,
in
another direction by
a wooded area beyond which are rpsidences,
and
in
the other two compass directions by more residences located approximately
100 yards
from the plant (R~80~8l),
1
State of Illinois Air Pollution Control Board,
Rules and Regulations Governing the
Control of
Air Pollution,
Rule 3—3~lllLimitations for Processes
Particulate matter emissions from any process shall be limited
by process weight in accordance with Table
1 of Chapter
III
except as provided in Rule 3~3.300, or as provided by separate
regulations
for specific processes under Rule 3~3~200~Emissions
from combustion for indirect heating shall be regulated by
Rule 3~3~ll2~
2
109
On the question of the atmospheric discharge of particulate
matter from the spraying operations,
the principal matter on which
evidence was heard, the most fundamental questions were simply not
answered.
That
is,
it was never determined with satisfactory speci~
ficity what the character and amount of the particulate emissions
were.
Witnesses for Roesch testified that the average rate of
emission from the enamel spraying process was approximately four and
a half pounds per hour with an average process weight of
400 pounds
per hour
(R.l42-l43,
182,
184).
The allowable rate of emission for
such
a process weight is 1.4 pounds per hour.
There is testimony of
a wide range of variation in the mass
rate
of emission
(R.150, Pet.
Ex.24).
The
great disparity in test results
is simply not dealt
with
on
the
record,
it is
unknown whether
the differences are
a
function
of a process change,
inadequate test, both or neither.
The tests performed by the company to determine the amount and
type of their emissions
(R,l79-183)
fall
far short of any recognized
engineering standard
for the determination of gas~borneparticulate
(R.275-276).
Additionally the type of testing to be performed for
the measurement of particulate matter is specified
in the rules.
2
The ASME
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
procedures
find
widespread acceptance throughout the engineering profession and are
incorpotated
in the rules of many jurisdictions.
There are cogent reasons for the specification of a testing
method,
It is possible
to use sampling methods A or B
(recommended as
the best by different authorities)
to sample contaminant X, with
considerable differences in efficiency and result,
Depending on
the
test method wide variations can be expected as regards accuracy,
sensitivity and selectivity.
Further the results of various testing
methods can be greatly influenced by
the skill, objectivity and
working conditions of the person or persons performing the test.
For these reasons reliance must be placed on standard procedures
as
much as possible.
As regards the mass per unit volume determination
of particulate matter
it is extremely important that a representative
sample be obtained.
Sampling should be performed in such a way
that,
as far as possible,
the gas stream carrying
the particulate matter
should undergo no disturbance or change of speed in entering the
collection device.
This
is the isokinetic sampling so often referred
to in discussions of aerosol sampling.
Further, consideration
2
State of Illinois Air Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution
Rule 3~3.ll3 Source Emission Measurement
Measurement of emissions of particulate matter from a particular
source will be made according to the procedures recommended in
the ASME Power Test Code 27-1957,
or other procedures approved by
the Technical
Secretary, and generally accepted by persons
knowledgeable in the state of the art.
2
—
110
must almost always be given to errors caused by condensation of water
vapor when hot, water—bearing gas streams are sampled.
Another
important aspect of particulate sampling not dealt with by Roesch
is the characterization of
the material by particle
size range.
Any
use of the tests
for selection or evaluation of collection equipment
can only be done if the size range of the particles to be collected
is known.
The company has characterized their effluvia as being composed
of inert,
non—toxic materials.
We
cannot, however,
he
so sanguine
about their character
with
a total
lack of qualitative analysis.
The materials may be relatively inert from the spraying operations
but this cannot be assumed of
the
effluvia from the baking process.
Use of fluorine bearing materials such as fluorspar
(calcium fluoride)
at elevated temperatures
may
result
in the atmospheric release of
fluorides
in
gaseous or solid
forms.
The firing cycle of ferro—enamel
operations may result in only
a relatively small amount of fluoride
emissions compared to those expected
from other known fluoride emitting
processes such as aluminum and fertilizer production nonetheless
the
immediate
locale of the plant may he significantly affected.
Fluorides,
in ceneral,
and
gaseous fluorides in particular have assumed great
importance as air pollutants in recent decades because of the
acute
toxicity of certain fluorides
to some plants and because all fluorides,
particulate
as well
as gaseous, may he accumulated by
forage to build
un concentrations in excess of
30—SO ppm in the leaves of plants whi9~
may
then
be
consumed
by
animals
with
a
resulting
detrimental
effect.
Mr.
Bohert
H.
Osterle,
president
of
Roesch,
testified
as
to
the
composition
of
a
typical
steel
enamel
formula
as
being:
23
parts
feldspar
33
parts
borax
22
parts
quartz
11
parts
soda
nitrate
42
parts
fluorsoar
3.9
parts
clay
0.4
parts
cobalt
oxide
0.7
parts
manganese
dioxide
0.4
parts
nickel
oxide
which
is
then
smelted
into
~glass~
which
is
subsequently
ground
and
blended
with
clay
(sodium
or
potassium
aluminum
silicate)
and
water
for
application
by
spraying
or
dipping
(R.12-13).
The
above
formula-
tion,
Mr.
Osterle
stated,
would
be
typical
of
the
material
being
emitted
from
the
plant
(R.l3)
.
This
is
probably
true
for
the
spraying
operation.
However,
the
enameling
formulation
is
applied
to
the
product
and
is
subsequently
fired
or
baked
on
at
temperatures
in
the
range
of
1350
to
1550°F.
(R.l44-145)
.
It
is
probable
that
during
the
firing
3
See
World
Health
Organization
Monograph
Series
No.
46,
Air
Pollution,
p.
233—278,
esp.
p.
244—260,
2—111
cycle materials
such as the silicates, halogen compounds
and carbonates
react to form fumes and gaseous mixtures of carbonates,
nitrates,
chlorides and fluorides which are then discharged
to the atmosphere.
The record is simply incomplete on this point, virtually no evidence
relating to this situation was adduced at the hearing.
We are simply
not informed as
to whether the process is such that particulate matter
may be picked up by combustion gases
and discharged into the atmosphere
along with gaseous products of reaction and combustion,
As
a condi-
tion of the variance we will require the company
to perform a stack
gas analysis of their firing process effluvia.
Both quantitative
and qualitative information is needed on this aspect of the operation.
This requirement is prompted particularly by the~testimony that
vegetation damage which is symptomatic
of the broadcast of fluorides
may be occurring in the area of
the plant
(R.225).
The principal particulate emissions and those which we are mainly
concerned with in this petition are from the spray application process
although it is probable that emissions from the high temperature opera-
tions are accounting
for some unknown amount of air pollution.
It
is
clearly important in this case that adequate
tests of the process
discharges be performed to determine
the identity and quantity of both
the particulate and gaseous emissions from the plant.
As
a condition
of the variance we will require the testing of both
the spraying
and baking operations.
The company has investigated several alternative methods of
particulate collection and presently feels that what might he called
the “Kohl” system will best serve their needs.
The method is simply
a low velocity exhaust system with baffles
(R.l28,
150).
Mr. Voges,
the company officer
in charge of the project said that Roesch
is pro-
ceeding to install the system in one of its spray booths
(B. 129)
.
The
“Kohl” system will cost approximately
$1,000 per booth or 18 to
20
thousand dollars for the complete installation
(R,ll9)
as contrasted
with $104,670 for the previously considered Type
“N” system
(R.l17-l20)
The company, with estimated annual profits of $50,000
(R.30)
on the
enameling operations and estimated operating costs of
$46,000
-
$50,000
for
the Type
“N”
system decided that they just could not afford the
higher priced system
(R,l3l).
Even with modifications of the system
it promised to be too expensive.
The control of particulate emissions
is
a relatively mature
technology and it
is safe to say that the means to càntrol any
stationary source without serious economic~burden, or at least
without exceeding the industry-wide burden
t has come to be accepted
is available.
In this case we have heard that adequate control can
be effected by more than one method and
at vastly disparate cost esti-
mates.
The
“Kohl”
system which was said to be
95
efficient
(R.l53)
has
not been evaluated
so we will require Roesch to perform proper
tests on that system as well
as one of their other spray booths.
We grant this variance to Roesch to continue their particulate
discharges
for 90 days from the present date by which time they
are to have performed stack tests and submitted a supplemental peti-
tion for variance containing a complete detailed program for the
Board to consider
to grant
a further extension of
time.
This variance
is limited to
90 days
-
after that time the company will not be
exempt from prosecution unless they will have secured an additional
extension of
the variance.
The company’s first request in their petition,
seeking to be
exempt from the general process weight—based limitation on emissions
is
unsupported on the record.
The following exchange between counsel
for the EPA, Mr.
Prillaman and vice-president of Roesch, Mr. Voges
is illustrative:
Mr. Prillaman:
Could you explain for me and for the Board your
reasons why you think that your particular facilities
should be treated any differently than other facilities who
are bound to emit a certain amount of particulate matter per
——
Mr. Voges:
There’s no reason we should be treated any differently.
Our only point was
if our material
is so similar to the
dust from the street and the road, why do we have
to be
cleaner than a foundry.
I’m not saying that the foundry
should be made
to meet our requirement, but why should we
be cleaner than a foundry when our material doesn’t do
the
damage that
a foundry’s does.
(R.l44)
The request for special treatment borders on
the frivolous,
we
find it wholly without merit and we deny
it.
As regards the filing of the required Air Contaminant Emission
Reduction Program
(ACERP)
by Roesch, we have on this record a clear
abnegation of responsibility.
Roesch filed
a timely letter of intent
in which they stated that an ACERP would be filed on or before April
15,
1968
(R.83-84).
Such
a program was never in fact filed,
The ACERP
is
a legal requirement which all manufacturers who were discharging par-
ticulate matter in excess of that allowed by
the rules were required to
comply with.
The company’s disregard of the
law cannot be excused lightly
As
a further condition to the grant of the variance we will require
Roesch to pay
a money penalty of $5,000 to the
State of Illinois,
A
variance
is an extraordinary privilege,
it is unquestionably a license
to pollute.
In considering whether to grant
such
a license the Board
must consider all
the facts and ultimately use
its best judgement coupled
with
the
expertise
it is statutorily presumed to embody to determine
if compliance with the rule from
which exemption is being sought
will
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on the petitioner.
This
hardship must then be balanced against the harm done to the environment.
It should be noted that
the money penalty in this case would undoubtedly
have been greater
were
it not for the fact that we are requiring Roesch
to perform tests which may involve considerable expenditure on its
part.
2— 113
The Environmental Protection Act gives
this Board the
authority to impose such conditions,
in the granting of variances,
which shall further the purposes of the Act which in their broadest
recognition are the prevention of potential and actual environmental
pollution.4J
We have on earlier occasions used this authority to~
impose money penalties
in the granting of variances5
and we deem it
appropriate
in this
case,
As another condition to this variance grant we shall require
the posting of
a security in the approximate amount of the value
of
the work to be performed, that
is,
$20,000,
to assure
the satis-
factory completion of the job.
(See ~~~-Ma!~onmn
Co.
v. EPA
decided December
22,
1970),
The security
shall be conditioned,
the
bond amount forfeited, on the operation of the plant with inadequate
control facilities after
the date,
to be decided after Roesch’s
submission of
a detailed control program and supplemental petition,
by which compliance with
the rules is to be achieved.
This opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact
and
conclusions of law.
~ironmentalProtectionAct,36(a)
“In granting a variance the Board may impose such conditions
as the policies of this Act may require.
.
Environmental Protection Act,
~ 2(b).
“It is the purpose of this Act.
.
.
to restore, protect and
enhance the quality of
the environment, and to assure that
adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and
borne by those who cause them.”
5
See
~
Cem~ntMf.Co., v.
EPA, PCB 70-23;
________
_________
v.
EPA, PCB 70-55;
Malibu Village Land Trust v.
EPA, PCB 70-45;
Greenlee Foundries,
Inc.,
v.
EPA, PCB 70-33;
~~~fM~Lttoon
v,
EPA,
PCB
71-8;
GAF v.
EPA,
PCB 7l-1T
2— 114
ORDER
The
Board,
having
considered
the
petition,
recommendation,
transcript
and
exhibits
in this proceeding, hereby grants the request
of
Roesch
Enamel
&
Manufacturing Company
(Roesch)
for
a variance
subject to the following conditions:
1.
This grant of variance extends for ninety days from date
to allow the discharge of particulate matter from the company’s
enamel spraying operations in excess of the limits prescribed
by the existing rules.
This variance is granted to allow
the
company to perform tests and complete its plans to install
air pollution control equipment to meet the particulate dis-
charge limitations.
2.
Roesch shall submit
a supplemental petition for variance
containing
a complete air pollution control program to the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
and the Board within
60 days specifying with appropriate detail the steps to be
followed to put its operations
in conformity with the regu-
lations within six months from date,
Such complete supple-
mental petition to extend the present variance may be acted
upon without a hearing.
3.
Roesch shall perform stack tests
(in conformance with Rule
3-3.113)
on both its spraying and high temperature baking
operations,
The tests shall be performed on at least one
spray booth discharge without the
“Kohl” system, one spray
booth discharge with the
“Kohl” system and
the discharges
from the baking operations.
The tests shall be of both a
qualitative and quantitative nature and shall identify as
well as characterize
(gas
flow, particle size, mass
rate of
emission)
the gaseous and particulate effluvia from the
operations.
At least seven days before the test the EPA
shall be notified and shall be given
a copy of
the test
procedures to be employed.
The EPA shall be present while
the tests are
in progress.
If the EPA suggests
any changes
in the test procedures which are not accepted by Roesch the
EPA shall so report to the Board.
The tests, with appropriate
replicates,
are
to be performed within 45 days and a report
submitted to the EPA and the Board within 14 days thereafter.
4,
Roesch shall post with the EPA on or before Augu~t 12, 1971
a bond or other adequate security
in the amount of $20,000
and
in such form as
is satisfactory
to the EPA, which sum
shall be forfeited to the State of Illinois
in the event the
plant shall be operated with emissions in excess of those
provided
for by regulation after the initial or extended
(if
any)
period of variance is expired.
Any extended date will be
determined after Roesch’s submission of their petition and
program as required by paragraph no.
2.
—
lib
5.
Roesch shall pay
to the State of Illinois, on or before
August
12,
1971
the
sum
of
$5,000
as
a penalty for the
failure to file an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction
Program in accordance with
the Rules and
Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
6.
The failure of Roesch to adhere
to any of the conditions
of
this order shall be grounds
for
revocation of the variance,
I, ReginaE.
Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order
on the
12
day of 1971.
(~
e
~aE.
yan,Cle
Il inois Pollution
ntrol Board
2—116