BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATFER OF:
PETITION OF CROMWELL-PHOENIX, INC.
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 218.204(c)
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Eric Boyd
LorenaNeal
Seyfarth Shaw
55
E. Monroe Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, Illinois
60603-5803
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE
AS
03-05
(Adjusted Standard
-
Air)
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution
Control Board the RECOMMENDATION ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a
copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
Date:
July
14, 2003
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Spring field, IL 62794-9276
217/782-5544
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By:_________
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF CROMWELL-PHOENIX,
NC.
)
AS
03-05
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard-Air)
35
ILL.
ADM. CODE 218.204(c)
)
)
RECOMMENDATION
OF THE ILLINOIS EPA
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
hereby
submits
its
recommendation in the above, captioned matter pursuant to the regulations ofthe Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”) at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Section
104.416.
The Illinois
EPA recommends
that the
Board
GRANT
the
petition of Cromwell-Phoenix,
Inc.,
subject
to
the
terms
and
conditions
contained in this recommendation.
In support of this recommendation, the Illinois EPA states as
follows:
BACKGROUND
1.
Cromwell-Phoenix, Inc. (“Cromwell”) filedits Petition forAdjusted Standard(“Petition”) on
May 29, 2003, pursuant to section 28.1
ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS
5/28.1,
and the regulations ofthe Board under 35111. Adm. Code Subpart D Section 104.402.
The Petition requestedthat theBoard grantCromwell an adjustedstandard from the volatile~organic
material (“VOM”) emissionlimitation of35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart F, Section 218.204(c),
as it applies to the VOM emissions from Cromwell’s corrosion inhibiting (“CI”) packaging materials
production facility in Alsip, Cook County, Illinois.
2.
This Petition for an Adjusted Standard results from Violation Notice A-200l-00265
issued
by
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency (“Illinois
EPA”) on
November
20,
2001,
and
follows an.inspection ofthe Alsip facility.
One ofthe allegations in the Violation Notice was that
I
Cromwell
failed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
reasonably
available
control
technology
(“RACT”) emission limitation
set
forth
in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 218,
Subpart F, concerning
paper
coating
operations.
Following
several telephone conferences
with representatives ofthe Illinois
EPA, Cromwell submitted a Compliance Commitment Agreement (“CCA”) on February
19,2002.
The CCA stated that
the VOM in Cromwell’s products
do
more than act as a vehicle for active
ingredients.
Rather, the VOM act as a paper softener, improving paper folding qualities and aid in
the transfer of corrosion
inhibitor compounds
to the wrapped metal parts
over
a length of time.
Thus,
the VOM are actually designed to stay
in the paper product.
Cromwell further notified the
Illinois EPA that while it was trying to find alternative coating materials which would comply with
RACT, a reformulation might impair product quality and actually increase VOM emissions.
The
increase would be due to the need for dryers to remove excess water from the paper.
3.
The Illinois EPAresponded with a CCA rejection on March 7,2002, and a Notice ofIntentto
Pursue Legal Actionon March
19, 2002.
Further negotiations ensued, with theresultthat Mr. David
E. Bloomberg, a coatings specialistwith the Illinois EPA’s AirQuality Planning Section, visited the
Cromwell
facility
on
May
9,
2002.
Based
upon
Mr.
Bloomberg’s
findings,
and
subsequent
discussions between Cromwell and the Illinois EPA, the parties agreed that a petition for adjusted
standard was warranted.
4.
Cromwell filed an application for a CleanAir Act~PermitProgram (“CAAPP”) permit with
the Illinois EPA on March 29, 2002.
The application asserts that Cromwell is a minor source.under
the CAAPP and Cromwell seeks a lifetime
operating permit.
The CAAPP permit application is
currently under consideration.
5.
On June 10, 2003, Cromwell filed a ProofofPublication ofNotice with the Board for this
2
adjusted standard petition.
The notice appeared in the
Chicago Tribune
on May31,2003.
On June
19, 2003,
the Board found that Cromwell’s notice met the requirements ofSection
28.1 ofthe Act
and of35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.408.
The Board furtherfound that the Cromwell petition met
the requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.406 and accepted the matter for hearing.
6.
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.416, the Illinois EPA is requiredto filea response
to a petition for adjusted standard within 45
days offiling.
DESCRIPTION
OF THE FACILITY
7.
Available information indicates the Cromwell
facility
is
located in Alsip,
Cook
County,
Illinois.
(Pet. App. at 4).
Cromwell is an Illinois corporation and employs 31 people in its 98,000
square foot building.
Id.
The Cromwell faôility emits approximately five to six tons ofVOM per
year.
Id. at
14.
Ofthis, less than five tons come from CI production operations.
Id.
The Illinois
EPA accepts Cromwell’s description of its CI packaging materials production facility and process
description and incorporates by reference Section D of the current Petition.
COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES
8.
Cromwell assertsin its Petition that its operationswere not contemplated by the regulations
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Part
218,
Subpart F.
(Pet.
Application at 8).
More specifically, unlike
conventional coating operations where VOM solvents are used as carriers of pigments and other
solids, and the VOMsolvents are intended to be evaporated,the VOMcomponents in Cromwell’s CI
solutions are intended to remain in the CI packaging products in order to perform theiressential CI
functions.
(Id.at 8,9).
Accordingly,Cromwell, by design, seeks to retain the VOM componentsin
the product.
14.
at
9.
A high molecular weight,
low volatility VOM was therefore selected
by
Cromwell to enhance retention in the product.
14.
3
9.
The Paper Coating rules found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218, Subpart F,were predicated upon the
beliefthat solvent acts as a carrier and evaporates afterthe paperhas been coated and the associated
resins or pigments
impregnated within the paper.
Cromwell
uses liquid organic components to
impregnate the paper, but these are components intended to remain in the paperbecause oftheir CI
effect.
They are thus an integral part ofthe product.
(Pet. App.
9
-
10). Cromwell
asserts that its
process retains over
95
ofthe organicliquids applied, whereas in conventional coating operations
virtually all solvents are driven offfrom the product(96
ormore).
(Pet. App. at 10).
Accordingly,
less than 10
ofCromwell’s products require the useofinfra-red(“IR”) dryers.
(Pet. App. at 6). JR
drying is only needed when the product contains excess water which needs to be driven off.
14.
10.
An alternative
to VOM
use
would
involve
the
use of extra
water in
the
CI
solution.
Cromwell claims that to have excess water presentin its CI inhibiting products is undesirable.
Id.
Excess water causes the fibers ofthe paperproducts to expand and become wrinided and welted. Id.
This makes the product difficult to handle and prevents the paperfrom getting a good wrap on the
metal items being protected by theCI paper.
14.
at 11.
Cromwell asserts that increased water usage
on the CI paperproduct would have a negative impact on the economicviability oftheCI production
operations.
14.
As such, ifadditional waterwere usedto replace some oftheVOM present in theCI
solution, additional heated drying operations would be necessary to drive offthe excess water.
14.
11.
Cromwell asserts that this would cause additional VOM emissions as the VOM components
of th& CI
solution would
evaporate along
with the water.
14.
When coupled with
the energy
requirements ofthe dryers, reformulated CI solution would result in highernet emissions of VOM
and reduce or eliminate any environmental benefits from reduced VOM usage.
14.
12.
Cromwell
obtained
the
services of a
consultant,
ERM,
Inc.,
to
assess
the technical
and
4
economic
feasibility of installing
add-on
control
devices.
(Pet.
App.
at
12).
The
consultant
determined that the feasible control options were oxidation and a Combination-adsorption/oxidation
system.
Id.
13.
Cromwell asserts that the RACT analysis ofERM, Inc. (Pet.
Exhibit A) found the cost of
installing add-on oxidation or adsorption/oxidation controls at Cromwell to be excessive.
Id.
The’
analysis found that the least expensive option would cost approximately $25,000 per ton of VOM
controlled.
(Pet. App. Exhibit A at 9).
Compliancedemonstations would add to this cost.
Id. at 12.
The Illinois EPA finds this analysis acceptable.
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
14.
Cromwell
has
requested
an
adjusted
standard
from
the
Board’s
air
pollution
control
requirements found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Subpart F, Section 218.204(c), insofar as that regulation
applies to the VOM emissions from Cromwell’s CI packaging materials production facilityin Alsip,
Cook County, Illinois.
The Illinois EPA recommends that theBoard GRANT Cromwell’s petition,
and
requests
that
the Board
allow
Cromwell
to
operate
its
CI
packaging
materials production
operations so long as it complies with the following conditions:
1.
The total actual VOM emissions from the entire Cromwell
Alsip facility shall not
exceed 25 tons per year.
2.
The Versil Pak wax laminating coatings shall continue to meet the applicable VOM
content limitations under 35 Iii.
Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart F.
3.
The web fed
and sheet fed CI coating and printing lines
shall use only CI solutions
which, as-applied, do not exceed 8.3
lbs. VOM per gallon, less water.
4.
Cromwell shall operate in full compliance with all otherapplicabie~provisions
of35
5
Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, including but not limited to, Subpart F.
5.
Cromwell shall continue to investigate CI coatingswith a reduced VOM content and,
where
practicable,
shall substitute
current coatings
with
lower VOM
content
as
long
as
such
substitution does not resultin a net increase in VOM emissions.
An annual report summarizing the
activities and results ofthese investigatory efforts shall be prepared by Cromwell and submitted to
the Illinois EPA Bureau ofAir, Compliance and Enforcement Section.
6.
The relief granted in this proceeding shall be limited to the equipment and emission
sources atthe Cromwell Alsip facility as ofJuly 14, 2003, and which were identified in the CAAPP
application as filed on March 29,
2002.
7.
Cromwell
shall
operate
in
full
compliance
with
the
Clean
Air
Act,
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act and other applicable regulations not otherwise discussed herein.
8.
Cromwell
shall
continue
to
report
all
annual
emissions
to
the
Illinois
EPA
commensurate with the requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 254.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
15.
The intent ofthe regulations promulgatedunder 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218
is to implement
RACT forVOM sources in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.
16.
The Cromwell facility emits approximately five to six tons ofVOM per year.
14.
at 14.
Of
this, less than five tons come from CI production operations.
14.
17.
The genesis of this
adjusted
standard
is
the
unique circumstances of the Cromwell
CI
operations. Unlike the typicalpaper coating facility, Cromwell wantsto retain the VOMin thepaper
product.
This unusual situation means that the typical VOM reduction techniques
would lead to
greater overall VOM emissions.
Cromwell maintains, and the Illinois EPA agrees, that addingwater
6
to the CI solution would increase VOM emissions from this process due to the subsequent need to
drive offthe added water and the concomitant evaporation ofVOM.
Cromwell further maintains
that
its
analysis identified two
forms of control options,
oxidation
and
a
combination
carbon
adsorption/oxidation system, which although technically feasible, would result in high installation
costs and high costs per ton ofVOM reduced.
14.
at
12.
18.
Overall,
it
is
the
confluence
of these unique
circumstances
that
allows
the
Agency to
recommend
that
the
Board
grant
this
adjusted
standard.
Considered together,
the
low
VOM
emissions,
the fact that the
Subpart F rules
did not anticipate an operation
like
Cromwell’s, the
increased
VOM emissions
from a
lower VOM CI
solution, and the high cost of add-on control
technology, favor an adjusted standard for Cromwell.
STANDARD OF
REVIEW
19.
Section
28.1 ofthe Act states that the Board may grant individual adjusted standards from
rules of general
applicability
whenever the Board
determines that
an
applicant
can justify
an
adjustment.
In
adopting
a rule
of general
applicability,
the
Board
may
specify the
level
of
justification required ofa petitioner for an adjusted standard.
Ifa rule ofgeneral applicability does
not contain a level ‘ofjustification that the petitionermust meet to
obtain an adjusted standard, the
requirements of Section 28.1(c) of the Act apply.
Section 28.1(c) states that the Board may grant
individual adjusted standards whenever the Board determines that:
(1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and sufficientlydifferent
from the factorsrelied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulations
applicable to that petitioner;
(2)
The existence ofthose factorsjustifies an adjusted standard;
(3)
The
requested standard
will not
result in environmental
or health effects
7
substantiallyand sufficiently more adversethan the effects consideredby the
Board in
adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability; and
(4)
The adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
20.
The regulation ofgeneral applicability from which Cromwell seeksan adjusted standard, 35
Ill.
Adm. Code §218.204(c), does not specify a level ofjustification that Cromwell must satisfy to
obtain an adjusted standard.
Therefore, Cromwell must satisfy the level ofjustification set forth in
Section 28.1(c) ofthe Act.
As summarized below, the requested adjusted standard for Cromwell’s
corrosion inhibiting paper operations is justified.
21.
The
Illinois ,EPA
agrees
with
Cromwell’s analysis
of the justification for
its
proposed
adjusted standard as set forth in Section H ofthe Petition, and hereby incorporates this
section by
reference.
The Paper
Coating Rules
at Section
2 18.204(c)
simply did not anticipate the type of
operation Cromwell maintains. Unlikemost manufacturers, Cromwell needs the VOM to remain in
the paper product.
Thus,
it is
in Cromwell’s
interest to keep VOM emissions
low.
In addition,
currently identified alternatives to the VOM solution such as a reduced VOM content would most
likely increase VOM emissions.
This results from the presence ofadditional water, which cannot
remain in the paperproduct.
Because the watermust be eliminated, or driven off, additional dryers
would
need to
be
installed.
Unfortunately,
driving off the water would
inadvertently drive off
additional
VOM.
(Pet.
App. at
15).
What is more, the identified emission control technology,
namely oxidation and a combination carbon adsorption/oxidation-system, involve high installation
and VOM reduction costs.
Such costs exceed the requirements of RACT.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
22.
The Board
may grant
the proposed adjusted
standard consistent with
federal
law
tinder
8
Section
110 ofthe Clean AirAct, 42 U.S.C. §7410, which grants the individual states the authority
to promulgatea planforthe implementation, maintenance, and enforcementofairquality standards,
subjectto approval by USEPA.
Pursuant to federal law, states also have the authority to revise such
a plan, subjectto USEPA approval. By following its adjustedstandardprocedurewith respectto the
Board’s federally authorized and
approved air emission regulations, the Board
is exercising
the
authority granted to the states through Section
110 ofthe Clean Air Act.
Ifthe requested adjusted
standard
is
adopted
by the
Board,
Illinois
EPA has the
authority
and
will submit the adjusted
standard to USEPA
as a SIP revision, thus complying with federal law.
HEARING
23.
Cromwell has requested a hearing before the Pollution Control Board.
WHEREFORE,
the
Illinois
EPA
recommends
that
Cromwell’s
Petition
for
Adjusted
Standard be GRANTED, and an order be entered adopting the adjusted standard with the specific
language presented in this Recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
~
Dated: July
14, 2003
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal
Counsel
1020 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 627949276
(217)782-5544
(217)782-9807 Facsimile
9
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY
OF
SANGAMON
)
SS.
)
PROOF
OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached Recommendation upon
the person to whom it is directed, by placing it in an envelope addressed to:
TO:
Dorothy
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, illinois 60601
Eric Boyd
Lorena Neal
,Seyfarth
Shaw
55
E.
Monroe Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, illinois
60603-5
803
BradleyHalloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
illinois 60661
and mailing itby First Class Mall from Springfield, illinois on July
14, 2003, with sufficient
postage affixed.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
TO BEFORE ME
this
14th
day ofJuly,
2003
~S¾~e9L_C~
~2
Notdy Public
I
“OFFICIAL SEAL”
~
Stephen C. Ewart
Notaiy Public. State of
iWnol
MyCommis~oo
Ezp.
11/16~OO6