ILLINOIS

POLLLJTION

C 0NT~OL BOARD

May

18,

1984

ACME

BARREL

COMPANY,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 83—118

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR.

BARRY GREENBURG OF FISCH, LANSKY

&

GREENBURG APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

MR. PETER ORLINSKY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board upon an August

22,

1983 petition for variance filed by Acme Barrel Company (Acme);

amended December 14, 1983.

Acme has requested a variance from

35

Ill. Adm. Code 215 Appendix

C,

215.211,

and 215.204(j)

former

ch.

2 Rules 104(h)(l),

205(j)(1),

and 205(n)(1)(J)1 to allow

it to delay compliance with the emission limitation for volatile

organic compounds

(VOC) discharged from its open head and tight

head drum reconditioning lines until December

31, 1985.

The

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed its recommendation

on February

3,

1984 to grant the variance subject to conditions.

A hearing was held on February 15,

1984

in Chicago, Illinois, at

which no members of the public attended.

FACTS

Acme owns and operates a facility which employs 185 people,

located at 2300 W. 13th Street,

Chicago,

Illinois.

At this

facility 35 gallon and 55 gallon drums are reconditioned.

Reconditioning of open head drums involves removal of paint

and residue by burning,

shotblast cleaning, and painting. Instead

of burning, tight head drum reconditioning involves chemical

removal of paint and residue.

Paint is applied to the interior

and exterior of the drums in spray booths and uncontrolled

drying ovens.

In order to comply with the VOC emission limitations Acme

has looked at various add—on controls and has worked to lower

the

VOC content of paint coatings through reformulation

58-105

---

The

add--cr~ cOnt~o~osLudied

were

the tollowing:

fume

incineration

~arhon

adsorption

condensation

techniques,

and

electrostatic

~aiutLnq

~1unendedPet. at 12—16).

The results

showed

that

either

th~

costs

were prohibitively expensive or

that

the

resuitir~g

product

would

be

unacceptable.

Electrostatic

precipitation

poses

problems

in

coating

a

multi—colored

barrel.

Afterburners are technically but not economically feasible for

Acme at this time.

The cost of natural gas consumed would

approximate $916,000/year

(Pet. at 9).

Additionally, Section

215.106 excuses afterburner operation between November

1 and

April

1,

which

would

result

in

increased

total

VOC

emissions:

The Board notes

that

VOC

emissions

during

the

winter are

not

thought

to

impair

public

health.

Acme is continuing its study of reformulated coatings.

High

solid

and

water

based

paints

have

been

formulated

by

other

companies

which

have

reduced

VOC

content

but

have

atomization,

glass

or curing problems (Product Data Sheets). As soon as

a suitable

lower

VOC

coating

is

formulated,

Acme

will

reformulate

its

own

coating

lines.

Modification

and/or

replacement

costs

for

coating

application

equipment

are

estimated

at

$100,000.

The

cost of compliance coatings are estimated to cost $175,000

to

$200,000

per

year

(Pet.

at

8).

The

Board

notes

that

Acme

has

been

actively

pursuing

compliance

with

the

VOC

limitations~

and

that

these

limitations

were

technology—forcing

at

the

time

of adoption

(R80—5,

49PCB

67,

87).

Present

limitations

are

found

in

Section

215.204(j)

which

provides

that

on

December

31,

1983,

the

VOC

content

of

the

coatings utilized

by Petitioner

shall be limited as follows:

exterior

(extreme performance) coating:

3.5 lb/gal

interior (clear) coating

4.3 lb/gal

In 1982 the Agency calculated Acme~sVOC emissions to be 617,236

lh./yr. or 309 tons/yr.

This amount was based on 48,315 gallons

of interior coating with an average VOC content of 5.46 lb./gal.

and 89,969 gallons of exterior coating with an average VOC

content of 4.25

ib.,’gai.

The allowable 1982 emissions under

the regulations were

346,245

lb./yr,

or

173 tons/yr.

(Agency

Rec.

at

3).

Excess

VOC emissions were 270,991 lh./yr. or 135 tons/y~:.

The record

shows that the imposition

of

high cost technology

on petitioner,

while the reformulation process is so near, would

be unreasonable.

Acme expects to reduce its annual excess VOC

emissions by the percentages listed below until compliance is

achieved on or by December 1985, whichever is earlier.

Until

final compliance is achieved, Acme proposes to use their best

efforts to conform to the following schedule:

58-106

---

Mont

July, 19B~

Dec~iber, 1984

July,

1985

December,

1995

(Agency

Rec.

at

4;

Acme stip.

at R2).

While the Board does not

accept

stipulations in variance proceedings so as not to thwart

public

participation, this agreement will be considered as a

joint

recommendation.

Acme

is

located in

a non~attainmentarea for ozone.

VOC

is

a precursor

of ozone which can have adverse health effects

on

the

elderly

and

persons with respiratory and cardiac problems.

In

seeking relief

Acme

must

show

that

the requested relief

will

not significantly

impact

the

environment

and is consistent

with

the Clean

Air

Act

(42

U.S.C.

§ 7401 et ~q.).

In

its

putition

Acme stated:

Based

upon

its

solvent usage

data,

and because

there ware no violations of the ozone standard

in Illinois ir 1982

the granting of this

petition for variance until December,

1985,

wiil not significantly interfere with the

attainnent or maintenance of the National

Awnier~tAir Qual3ty Standard for ozone.

(Pet.

at 10).

The Agency agrees that granting this variance

should not

cause any increased heaith effects”

(Rec.

at 7).

The closest

ozone monitoring

~tation

is located

5 miles from Acme.

The

ozone standard was not exceeded at the aionitor in 1982, but

was exceeded once in 1983

(Her.

at 7). The Board recognizes that

transport of ozone precursors over distance may cause ozone problems

rn other aieas.

The Board c~nc1udestherefore, that Acme~splan for emissions

reduction is consi~’‘ant with federal law and will reduce adverse

enviro’urentai impact,

The Board has previrusly granted variances

in simliar fact situations.

See Van Leer

ontainer,

Inc.,

v.

IEPA,

~CB 83~133, i4ay

3

1984,

~

Steel_Drum,

Inc.

V.

IEPA,

PCB 83~l17,May

3,

1984,

Balancing

the

financial

and

technical

hardship

and

the

minimal

adverse

en’rironmental

impact,

the

Board

finds

that

denial

of

the

variance

at

this

time

would

impose

an

arbitrary

or

unreasonable

hardship

on

the

petitioner.

Therefore,

the

Board

hereby

grants

Acme

a

variance

from

the

terms

of

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code 215 Appendix

C,

2i5,211, and 215.204(j)

subject to the

conditions below

58

107

---

—4—

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and

ORDER

Acme Barrel Company is hereby granted a variance from Section

215, Appendix C, Section 215.211, and Section 215.204(j) until

December

31, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

1.

Acme Barrel Company shall continue its diligent efforts

to develop and utilize coating materials which have

a

VOC

content less than the presently used coating

materials.

During the period of this variance

(a)

the average

VOC

content of exterior and interior

coatings shall not exceed 4.25 lb./gal. and 5.46 lb./gal.

respectively.

2.

Within 28 days of the Board’s Final Order herein, and

every third month thereafter, Petitioner shall sub—it

written reports to the Agency detailing all

progress

made in achieving compliance with Section 215.204(j).

Said reports shall include information on the

names

of replacement coatings and the manufacturers 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 operating

parameters, detailed description 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 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

Springfield, XL

62706

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Region 1, Field Operations Section

Suite 600

Naywood, XL

60153

3.

Within 28 days of the Board’s Final Order herein, Pstitioner

permits pursuant to Section 201.160(a).

58-108

---

4~ Not later than July 2,

1984, petitioner

shall execute a

Certification of Acceptance

and

Agreement to be bound to

all terms and conditions

of

the variance~

Said

Certification

shall be submitted to both

the

Agency at the addresses

specified in paragraph #2,

supra

and to the Illinois

Pollution Control Board

at

309

West Washington Street,

Suite

300,

Chicago,

IL 60606.

This

45

day

period

shall

be held in abeyance during any period

that

this matter is

being appealed.

The form of said Certification

shall be

as follows:

CERTIFICATION

hereby accepts and agrees

(Petitioner)

to be bound by all terms and conditions of the Order of the

Pollution Control Board in PCB#

dated

(Petitioner)

By

,

(Title)

(Date)

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

Board Member

Bill

Forcade

concurred.

authorized

agent

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the above Opinion

and Order were

adopted on the

~

day

of

—

__________,1984

by

a

~a.

Christar~

L.

Moffett~, Clerk

Illinois Pollution~

Control

Board

/,~

~

58409