ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 20, 1984
UNITED STATES CAN COMPANY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB
84—23
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PI~’OTECTIONAGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION
ANI)
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J. Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
v~arianceof the United States Can Company (U.S. Can) filed on
February 24,
1984.
The Petitioner has requested a variance until
December 31,
1985 from the volatile organic compound
(VOC)
emission limitations of 35
Iii. Adm. Code 215.204(b)
((formerly
Rule 204(n)(1)(B) of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution Regulations)
in
order to complete the development of a reformulated, low—VOC
exterior varnish coating.
On March
8,
1984, the Board entered an Order requesting
additional information on the levels of volatile organic compound
emissions and on ozone ambient air quality.
On March 30,
1984,
the Petitioner filed an amended variance petition and supplemental
information in response to the Board’s Order.
On April
5,
1984,
the Board entered an Order which directed that the case be set
for hearing.
On May 25,
1984, the Illinois
~nvironfnental
Protection Agency
(Agency) filed its Recommendation which
recommended that the Petitioner be granted a variance until
December 31,
1985, subject to certain conditions.
A hearing was
held on July 12,
1984.
The United States Can Company owns and operates a multi—shift
metal can manufacturing plant located at 1717 Gifford Road in
Elgin,
Illinois which employs 440 people and
has an annual
payroll
of $14,300,000.
(R.
13).
The Petitioner’s facility is located
in the extreme southwest corner of Cook County in a sparsely
populated area less than a mile from both the DuPage and the Kane
County lines.
The nearest residents are located about one mile
to the east at a small trailer park.
(Pet.
Exh.
1, p.
2—3).
The United States Can Company is a new company created on
December
1,
1983 through the purchase (via a leveraged buy-out
60-87
—2.—
where all the Petitioner~sassets were used to secure the needed
financial capital) of three Sherwin—Williams Company metal con-
tainer plants located in Elgin,
Illinois; Hubbard, Ohio; and
San Leandro, California.
(R.
13—14).
The Petitioner’s Elgin
facility
is the largest and Trost important of the three
container
plants owned by the company.
(R.
13).
No
cans for the beer, beverage and food markets are produced
at this Elgin plant.
Instead, the Petitioner manufactures metal
cans for the general
line can market.
The product line produced
at the Elgin plant consists
of steel quart and gallon oblong cans
and nine sizes of aerosol
cans.
(Pet.
2,
Rec.
2). All
cans are
three-~p:Lececans which are made of steel.
A separate body,
top,
and bottom are formed separately from sheets
of steel and then
are seamed together to make a can.
Before being punched, slit,
formed, and connected to make a can, the steel
sheets are coated
with interior and exterior finishes.
r2he Petitioner’s lithography and coating department applies
both interior and exterior coatings to the steel sheet before it
is
formed into cans.
(Rec.
2),
The lithography department
utilizes three conventional
(solvent—base) coaters and three
ultra-violet
(0
VOC) coaters,
Only the three conventional
(solvent—base) coaters are the subject of U.S. Can’s requested
variance.
(Rec.
2).
Although the company also applies end-
sealing compounds, no variance is necessary for that operation
since it is currently in compliance with applicable regulations.
(Rec.
2).
Over forty different coatings which contain VOCs are used
tc~
the lithography department~
Section 215, Appendix C
(formerly
Rule 205(j)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Regulations) mandates
that sources of
VOC
emissions generated by can coating operations
must achieve compliance with Section 213.204(b) by December
31,
1982.
Section 215.204(b)
requires that
VOC
emissions from U.S.
Can’s surface coating operations be limited to 2.8 pounds per
gallon (lbs./gal.).
In 1983,
the Petitioner used a total
of 101,700 gallons of
exterior coatings and 19,165 gallons of interior linings.
Thus,
the company used
a total of
120,865 gallons of coatings
in 1983
which contained VOC (i.e.,
101,700 gallons of exterior coatings
pius 19,165 gallons
of interior linings
=
120,865 gallons of
coatings).
According to the Agency’s calculations, the resultant VOC
emissions in 1983 were as follows:
Actual emissions:
521,173 lbs./yr.
=
260.6 tons/yr.
Allowable
emissions:
402,198 lbs./yr.
=
201.1 tons/yr.
Excess emissions:
118,975 lbs./yr.
=
59.5 tons/yr.
60-88
—3—
At the time that U.S. Can bought the Elgin plant from the
Sherwin—Williams Company on December
1,
1983, the facility was
not in compliance with Section 215.204(b).
(Rec.
3).
However,
the Petitioner has indicated that the Sherwin—Williams Company
had been diligently attempting to develop reformulated, low-VOC
coatings since July 1978; had tested over 140 different
low
solvent formulations, and had met with considerable
(but not
total)
success.
(Rec.
3),
U.S. Can has continued this coating
reformulation program since buying the plant from the
Sherwin—Williams Company and estimates that $290,000 has been
spent on this program to date.
(Rec.
3).
The facility’s present compliance program includes a
three-step program for reformulation of exterior coatings to high
solids. Step one is the reformulation of an exterior varnish to
replace non—compliance varnishes.
This step is virtually
completed and will account for a reduction of
16 tons of VOC.
Step two is the reformulation of the exterior varnish used
for
aerosol can tops and bottoms which is expected to be completed
by
December 31,
1984.
This step will account for a reduction of
35
tons of
VOC.
Step three is the reformulation of exterior white
coatings which is anticipated to be completed by December 31,
1985. This step will account for the reduction of
34 tons of VOC.
(Rec.
3).
Thus, the present compliance program anticipates reformu-
lation of the high volume coatings which would then allow
compliance pursuant to the internal offset provisions contained
in Section 215.207 (formerly Rule 205(n)(4)
of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution Regulations). Upon completion of its coating re-
formulation program,
U.S. Can will, be in compliance with Section
215.204(b)
and VOC emissions from its Elgin plant are expected to
be about 25 tons below allowable emission
limits.
(Rec.
4).
The
company has indicated that coating usage,
in terms of gallons per
year,
is expected to be about the same in 1984 and 1985 as in
1983, but it is anticipated that the VOC emissions will
he sub-
stantially reduced.
U.S. Can has investigated the possibility of using add-on
control systems as an alternative if its reformulation compliance
program is unsuccessful.
However, such controls would cost over
$555,000
(not including construction costs such as necessary roof
work and superstructure construction which the facility could not
supply) plus $50,000 in annual operating costs.
Because the
installation and operation costs of a thermal incineration system
or a catalytic reactor system are so large, this alternative
could only be considered as
a Last resort and might necessitate
the selling of its Ohio and California plants
(to finance the
purchase of such controls),
the closing of production lines
for
three weeks and concomitant loss of business, and might jeopardize
the existence of the Elgin plant as a viable economic entity.
(R.
13—14).
60-89
—4.,.
The Agency has indicated that the Petitioner has been engaged
in good faith, diligent efforts to come into compliance with
Section 215,204(b).
As stated on page four of the Agency’s
Recommendation,
“the Agency further believes that Petitioner’s
compliance program should achieve the necessary reductions
witidri
an expeditious time frame”.
The Agency has noted that
it con-
siders U.S. Can’s reformulation program to be preferable
to the
installation of add—on controls.
(Rec.
4).
The controls necessary
to properly reduce VOC emissions and achieve immediate coripliance
would consume vast amounts of sometimes scarce natural gas.
Additionally, the provisions of Section 215.106
(formerly
Rule 205(r) of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Regulations) would
limit
the operation of the controls to only seven months a year,
so
that annual VOC emissions are likely to be greater if controls
are used to achieve compliance rather than the proposed coatings
reformulation program.
(Rec.
4).
The Agency states that, upon
completion of the Petitioner’s compliance program, the Elgin
plant will have fewer VOC emissions,
on an annual basis, than
if
it had installed control equipment.
The Board points out that,
regarding only ozone caused health effects,
it is not as
importa~it.
if VOC emissions are greater on an annual basis provided that
they are reduced during
the ozone season.
The company’s facility is located
in a sparsely populated,
mixed industrial and rural area about one mile from the nearest
residents.
The Agency has never received a complaint
fro,Tl area
residents pertaining to this Elgin plant.
(Rec.
5).
The Petitioner’s metal can manufacturing facility is located
in an area which is classified as nonattainment for ozone and thr~
closest ozone monitoring station
is located about four miles
to
the northwest of the plant in Elgin,
Illinois.
Ozone levels
in
excess of the primary ambient air quality standard of 0.12 parts
per
million were rioL exceeded at that monitor during
1982.
In
1983, the primary ambient air quality standard for ozone was
exceeded twice during the year.
(Rec.
5).
The Agency has indicated that it believes that a denial of
the requested variance would constitute an arbitrary and un-
reasonable hardship because:
(1) U.S. Can has been diligently
seeking a means to reduce its VOC emissions;
(2) the Agency has
nO
reason to doubt that the company’s continuing coating re-
formulation program will be equally as diligent;
(3) U.S. Can’s
episode action plan provides sufficient safeguards during periods
of high ozone concentration;
(4) installation of afterburners may
not be the most environmentally sound solution in the long run,
and would be extremely expensive and wasteful of natural gas;
(5)
the facility was already out of compliance when U.S. Can bought
the Elgin plant, and even though the previous owner was atternptiag
to achieve compliance,
the Petitioner should not be held accountthle
60-90
—5—
for its predecessor~sfailure to seek a variance,
and
(6) when
the Board initially adopted the VOC emission limitations in
R80—5,
it was realized that the regulations were “technology
forcing”
and
it
was
anticipated
that
variances
for
some
facilities
would
be
needed.
(Rec.
4—10).
Accordingly,
the
Board
finds that denial of variance would
impose an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardship
upon
the
Petitioner
and will grant the requested relief, subject to the conditions
delineated in the Order,
The Board notes that,
of course, nothing
in this Order shalt
be. construed to relieve the United States Can Company from its
responsibility to pay noncompliance penalties that may be assessed
under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.,
Section 7420.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Petitioner, the United States Can Company,
is hereby
granted a variance for its metal can manufacturing plant in
Elgin,
Illinois until
December 31,
1985
from
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code 215.204(b), subject to the following
conditions:
1,
The
Petitioner
shall submit written reports to the
Agency
by
October 24,
1984,
and
every
third
month thereafter,
detailing all progress made in achieving compliance with
Section 215.204(b).
Said reports shall include information on
the names of replacement coatings and the manufacturer’s
specifications
including
per
cent
solids
by
volume
and
weight,
per
cent
VOC
by
volume
and
weight,
per
cent
water
by
volume
and
weight,
density
of
coating,
and
recommended
operational
parameters;
detailed
descriptions of each test conducted including
test
protocol,
number
of
runs,
and
complete
original test results;
the
quantities
and
VOC
content
of
all
coatings
utilized
during
the
reporting
period;
the
quantity
of
VOC
reduction
during
the
reporting
period;
and
any
other
pertinent
information which may
be
requested
by
the
Agency.
The
reports
shall
be
sent
to the
following
addresses:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division
of
Air
Pollution
Control
Control Programs Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Region
1, Field Operations Section
1701 South First Avenue
Suite 600
Maywood, Illinois
60153
60-91
—6—
2.
The
Petitioner
shall
apply
to
the
Agency
for
any
required
operating permits
by October 24, 1984
pursuant
to
Section
201.160(a).
3.
On, or before,
October
1,
1985, the Petitioner shall
apply to the Agency for the renewal of all requisite operating
permits
pursuant
to the
internal
offset provisions
contained
in
Section
215.207.
4.
During
the
pendency
of
this
variance,
the
Petitioner
shall
adhere
to
its
compliance
program
as
specified
in
paragraph
six
of
the
Agency’ s
Recommendation.
5.
Within
45
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
Petitioner
shall
execute
and
forward
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Division
of
Air
Pollution
Control,
Compliance
Assurance
Section,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a
Certificate
of
Acceptance
and
Agreement
to
be
bound
to
all
terms
and
conditions of this variance.
This 45—day
period
shall be
held in abeyance for any
period
this matter is being appealed.
The form of the certificate shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We), ___________________________, having read the
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
PCB
84—23 dated
September
20,
1984,
understand
and
accept
the said Order, realizing
that
such
acceptance
renders
all
terms
and
conditions
thereto
binding
and
enforceable.
United
States
Can
Company
By:
Authorized
Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
80-92
Board Member B~Forcade concurred.
I, Dorothy
M.~ Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adoptr~d
on the
~0a. day of
______________-,
1984 by a vote of
~-O
~o~1~17
y,,.
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
60-93