ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 21, 1995
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
JOINT PETITION OF REYNOLDS
)
METALS COMPANY and the
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY FOR AN
)
AS 91-8
ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
) (Adjusted Standard-Air)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 218.980.
)
RENATA MANZO, REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER; and
SHEILA KOLBE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C. A. Manning):
This matter is before the Board on an Amended Co-Petition
for an adjusted standard filed jointly by Reynolds Metal
Company (Reynolds) and the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) on June 9, 1995. The petitioners request that
Reynolds be given an adjusted standard from the emission
control requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980,
et seq
.,
for its hot and cold rolling mills located in McCook,
Illinois.
1
The Board's responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act. (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq
.).
The Board is charged therein to "determine, define and
implement the environmental control standards applicable in
the State of Illinois" (Section 5(b) of the Act) and to
"grant...an adjusted standard for persons who can justify such
an adjustment." (Section 28.1(a) of the Act.) Thus, the Board
is charged with the authority to grant individual adjusted
standards which are different from the Board's generally
applicable regulations. Although usually granted as permanent
relief, the adjusted standard is not adopted as a rule.
Rather, the opinion and order serves as the regulatory and
enforcement vehicle.
Based upon the record before us and upon review of the
factors involved in the consideration of adjusted standards,
the Board finds the petitioners have demonstrated that the
adjusted standard sought is warranted, and accordingly, the
1
Additionally, before the Board is a pending motion filed by the counsel
for the Agency requesting certain corrections to the transcript of the hearing
held before the Board. No response was filed by Reynolds Metals, therefore,
the motion is hereby granted. The record shall include the transcript with
the changes as set forth in the Agency's August 28, 1995 motion.
2
adjusted standard is granted.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
Section 28.1 of the Act provides that a petitioner may
request, and the Board may adopt, an environmental standard
that is: (a) applicable solely to the petitioner, and (b)
different from the standard that would otherwise apply to
petitioner pursuant to a rule of general applicability. Such
a standard is called an adjusted standard. The general
procedures that govern an adjusted standard proceeding are
found at Section 28.1 of the Act and within the Boards'
procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 106. Where, as
here, the regulation of general applicability does not specify
a level of justification required from a petitioner to qualify
for an adjusted standard, the Act at Section 28.1 (c)
specifies four demonstrations that must be made by a
successful petitioner. They are:
(1)
Factors relating to that petitioner are
substantially and significantly different from the
factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the
general regulations applicable to that petitioner;
(2)
The existence of those factors justifies an adjusted
standard;
(3)
The requested standard will not result in
environmental or health effects substantially and
significantly more adverse than the effects
considered by the Board in adopting the rule of
general applicability; and
(4)
The adjusted standard is consistent with any
applicable federal law. (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c).)
We will address each of these demonstrations in the opinion
below:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter originally arose in 1988, when the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) was adopted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for certain counties
in Illinois, including Cook, requiring volatile organic
compound (VOC) control measures. Consequently, Illinois
promulgated identical regulations governing volatile organic
materials (VOM) emissions requiring reduction of VOM emissions
by 81 percent prompting Reynolds to file the original adjusted
standard petition in 1991. Reynolds also, at that time,
sought a revision to the FIP from the USEPA which would allow
for relief from the 81 percent reduction requirement and
3
instead allow Reynolds to use site-specific control practices
and treatments.
We stayed action before the Board on Reynold's adjusted
standard petition pending the USEPA's final decision on
Reynolds' proposed FIP revision and on March 10, 1995, USEPA
promulgated the site-specific reasonably available control
technology (RACT) control measures for the Reynolds' McCook
facility. (60
Fed. Reg.
13042.) The proposed adjusted
standard pending in this matter mirrors the FIP revision
approved by USEPA.
Subsequently, on March 22, 1995, the parties submitted a
status report to the Board indicating that they were ready to
resume the hearing process. The Board lifted the stay and
directed the matter to hearing. Prior to the hearing being
held, the parties filed an amended petition which contained,
among other things, agreed changes to the adjusted standard
language from the original petition. We accept those changes,
which are set forth in the order section below.
Pursuant to proper notice, a hearing was held before
chief hearing officer, Michael L. Wallace, on July 18, 1995,
in the offices of the Board located in Chicago, Illinois.
Reynolds and the Agency were represented by counsel. Reynolds
presented both oral and written evidence; however, no post-
hearing briefs were filed in this matter. No members of the
public were present at the hearing.
RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Petitioners seek an adjusted standard from the air
emission control requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218.
Reynolds is subject to the requirements in Subpart TT of the
RACT rules, entitled "Other Emission Units." Pursuant to
Section 218.980(b)(1), the applicability threshold for Subpart
TT is potential to emit 25 tons per year. The applicable
emission control requirements are set forth in Section
218.986, which states in pertinent part:
Every owner or operator of an emission unit subject to
this Subpart shall comply with the requirements of
subsection
(a),(c),(d), or (e) below.
(a)
Emission capture and control equipment which achieve
an overall reduction in uncontrolled VOM emissions
of at least 81 percent from each emission unit, or
****
4
(c)
An alternative control plan which has been approved
by the Agency and the USEPA in a federally
enforceable permit or as a SIP revision.
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
Rather than having to meet the requirement that Reynolds
reduce its VOM emissions by 81 percent for each emission unit
in Section 218.986(a), which Reynolds believes is not
technically feasible or economically reasonable as applied to
Reynolds, the co-petitioners have proposed an adjusted
standard which consists of the control and treatment practices
currently employed by Reynolds. The practices include the use
of rolling lubricants of oil-in-water emulsions, rolling
lubricants of low vapor pressure lubricants, and temperature
controls to minimize VOM emissions. The proposed adjusted
standard also includes additional monitoring and record
keeping requirements.
According to the co-petitioners, these practices would
satisfy Section 218.986(c) as an "alternative control plan"
allowable under the Illinois' State Implementation Plan (SIP)
and the FIP. Additionally, the control practices and
treatment practices have been approved by the USEPA as part of
a FIP revision (60
Fed. Reg.
13042) and the proposed adjusted
standard is similar to that granted by the Board in
In the
Matter of: Petition of Alumax, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard
from 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218
(September 1, 1994) AS 92-13.
BACKGROUND AND REYNOLDS' COMPLIANCE EFFORTS
Reynolds originally acquired its McCook, Illinois site
from the U.S. government in 1946. Today, the site is owned
and operated by Reynolds as an aluminum sheet and plate
manufacturing facility which produces coiled sheet and plate
aluminum, and which employs 650 people. (Am. Pet. at 4.)
Reynolds operates hot rolling mills and cold rolling mills at
the facility producing coiled sheet and plate aluminum. (Tr.
at 19.)
Operating at temperatures between 600 and 1000 degrees F.
and at speeds of up to 800 feet/minute, four hot rolling mills
reduce the thickness of cast aluminum ingots to produce
aluminum sheets. During the hot rolling process, frictional
heat is generated between the aluminum strip and the steel
rolls and Reynolds uses coolants consisting of an oil and
water emulsion, to cool the rolls and roll surfaces. Though
the coolants are constantly recycled (Tr at 22), they are the
primary source of VOM emissions.
The current emission control techniques for the hot
5
rolling mills include (1) blow-off controls to minimize the
amount of coolant carried out on the work product and to
minimize the amount of emulsion in contact with hot aluminum
strop; (2) the emulsion itself serves as a control device by
maximizing the amount of water, the oil content and potential
for oil vaporization is reduced; (3) temperature control of
the coolant. (Tr. at 25.)
Reynolds also operates two cold rolling mills, which are
used to further reduce the thickness of the aluminum sheet.
Cold rolling produces a superior finished product compared to
hot rolling. (Tr. at 26-27.) Coolant is also used on the
cold rolling mills to cool the rolls and control the friction
between the strip and the rolls. Petroleum based products
with additives are applied by a pressurized spraying system,
recovered and reused. Similar to the hot rolling mills,
emissions from the cold rolling mills are controlled by using
the blow-off controls and a combination of coolant selection
and temperature controls. (Tr. at 29.)
Reynolds presented RACT demonstrations for both the hot
and cold rolling mills. (Am. Pet., Ex. #1 and #2.) Reynolds
measured the VOM emissions at approximately 198 tons per year.
On behalf of Reynolds, Beth Smith, Manager of Air Quality,
testified that while there are USEPA reference test methods,
there is no approved standard test method for testing VOM
emissions from hot rolling mills (Tr. at 43) and that there is
no adequate add-on VOM emission control systems for hot
rolling mills. (Tr. at 35.) In reaching this conclusion,
Reynolds examined several alternative compliance options:
Thermal incineration, oil absorption (heavy oil scrubbers),
carbon adsorption, and hoods. According to Reynolds and the
Agency, thermal incineration is not feasible because pollutant
concentrations are not high enough to produce complete
combustion. Oil absorption was eliminated as an option
because the only two vendors of an oil absorption system do
not have one specifically designed for hot rolling mills.
Carbon adsorption was ruled out because of high moisture and
temperature, both of which affect adsorption efficiency.
Hoods are costly and difficult to install and would cause
visibility problems for operators. (Tr. at 35-37.) (
See also
Alumax
, slip op. at 6-8.)
Regarding cold rolling mills, Reynolds estimates that
annual VOM emissions for its mill #7, to be 85.3 tons. (Tr.
at 38) Testing could not be performed for mill #1 due to
hoods already in place at the facility which are serving as
emission controls. Reynolds believes that a conservative
estimate of VOM emissions from mill #1 would be the equivalent
of mill #7. (Tr. at 38.)
Similar to the hot rolling mills, Reynolds evaluated several
6
alternative control technologies for the cold rolling mills.
Reynolds considered thermal incineration, hoods, oil
absorption and carbon adsorption. (Tr. at 39.) As with the
hot rolling mills, Reynolds found that add-on control
technologies were neither technically or economically
feasible.
Specifically regarding economics, Smith testified that it
estimates that the various add-on technologies would cost
approximately $40,000 per ton to reduce VOM emissions. (Tr.
at 40;
see also Alumax
, slip op. at 6-8.) According to
Reynolds, other agencies have used $3500 per ton as a
threshold figure for determining economic reasonableness and
therefore, being 11 times higher, the $40,000 per ton figure
is unreasonable. While the Agency agrees that the $40,000 is
unreasonable and that other agencies may use $3500 per ton,
the Agency itself uses a higher cost per ton calculation in
performing RACT analysis depending on the operation. (Tr.at
41.)
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Although Reynolds and the Agency have not calculated the
total combined difference in emissions between complying with
the 81 percent standard and the proposed adjusted standard,
the co-petitioners agree that there will be no significant
adverse impact on the environment. The co-petitioners believe
that the technology used in the proposed adjusted standard is
protective of the environment and human health because it
employs the best means currently available.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
Both the Agency and Reynolds agree that the proposed
adjusted standard is consistent with federal law. The
proposed alternative standard constitutes RACT for the McCook
facility, and is therefore consistent with the federal Clean
Air Act. Additionally, the proposed adjusted standard is
consistent with the site-specific FIP revision approved by
USEPA. (60
Fed. Reg.
13042.)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Agency supports the granting of the adjusted standard
and has concluded that the hardship resulting from the denial
of the adjusted standard would outweigh the environmental
impact from the grant of the adjusted standard.
DECISION
The Board finds that the joint petitioners have
demonstrated that an adjusted standard is appropriate for the
7
Reynolds facility in McCook, Illinois. The co-petitioners
have demonstrated that there is no other technically feasible
and economically reasonable control technology, and have
demonstrated that the proposed alternative standard will not
significantly impact human health or the environment. Because
petitioners have demonstrated that there is no add-on
technology which can be applied as RACT to the Reynolds
facility which would enable it to meet the 81 percent VOM
emissions reduction set forth in Section 218.986(a), we find
that petitioners have demonstrated that factors relating to
Reynolds are substantially and significantly different from
those relied upon by the Board in adopting the rule of general
applicability, and that these factors warrant the granting of
an adjusted standard. Furthermore, petitioners have
demonstrated that the proposed adjusted standard will be
consistent with federal law. The proposed adjusted standard
is accordingly granted, subject to conditions as agreed to by
the parties.
This opinion constitutes the Board's findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Reynolds Metal Company is hereby granted an adjusted
standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980 et seq., pursuant to
415 ILCS 5/28.1, for its facility located in McCook, Illinois,
subject to the provisions and conditions listed below:
A)
The adjusted standard pertains to VOM emissions from the
operation of Reynolds' aluminum hot rolling mills:
specifically, the aluminum sheet and plate mills and the
120 inch, 96 inch, 80 inch and 145 inch mills. This
adjusted standard also pertains to the aluminum cold
rolling mills: Numbers 1 and 7.
B)
The alternative control requirements proposed in the June
9, 1995 amended co-petition for adjusted standard, based
upon the FIP revisions by USEPA in the Federal Register
(60 Fed. Reg. 13042), represent Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACT) and no additional controls are
required to meet the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
218.986.
C)
Reynolds shall comply with the following requirements at
each of its aluminum hot rolling mills:
1)
Rolling lubricants shall consist of oil-in-water
emulsions, with formulations of no more than 15
percent, by weight, of petroleum-based oils and
additives. Records shall be maintained of such
emulsion formulations, with identification of all
8
oils and additives.
2)
A grab sample of the as-applied rolling lubricant
shall be taken on a monthly basis during any month
that the mill is in operation and each such sample
shall be tested, using ASTM method D95-83, to
determine the percent, by weight, of petroleum-based
oils and additives.
3)
The inlet supply rolling lubricant temperature
measured at or after the inlet sump but prior to the
lubricant nozzles shall not exceed 200 degrees F and
such temperature shall be monitored at all times
that the mill is in operation by the use of
thermocouples and measured values shall be
automatically recorded at least every five (5)
minutes by means of a chart recorder or electronic
data system.
4)
All records of emulsion formulations, percent oil
tests, and rolling lubricant temperatures shall be
retained at the Facility for a period of at least
three (3) years and shall be available for
inspection by the Agency upon request.
D)
Reynolds shall comply with the following requirements at
each of its aluminum cold rolling mills:
1)
Rolling lubricants shall consist of low vapor
pressure lubricants composed of organic lubricant
and additives. Records shall be maintained of
rolling lubricant formulations, with identification
of all oils and additives.
2)
a)
The initial and final boiling points of oil
shall be between 460 and 635 degrees F.
b)
All incoming shipments of oils shall be sampled
and a distillation range test shall be
performed, using ASTM method D86-90, on each
such sample to determine the initial and final
boiling points.
c)
A grab sample of the as-applied rolling
lubricant shall be taken on a monthly basis
during any month that the mill is in operation
and a distillation range test, using ASTM Method
D86-90, shall be performed on each such sample
to determine the initial and final boiling
points.
3)
The inlet supply rolling lubricant temperatures
9
measured at or after the inlet sump but prior to the
lubricant nozzles shall not exceed 150 degrees F and
such temperatures shall be monitored at all times
that a mill is in operation by the use of
thermocouples and measured values shall be
automatically recorded at least every five (5)
minutes by means of chart recorder or electronic
data system.
4)
All records of rolling lubricant formulations,
distillation range tests for incoming shipments of
oils, and as-applied rolling lubricants, and rolling
lubricant temperatures shall be retained at the
facility for a period of at least three (3) years
and be available for inspection by the Agency.
E)
A written report shall be submitted to the Agency
indicating any deviations from the requirements of
paragraphs (C)(1)-(3) and (D)(1)-(5) above. The written
report shall provide a description of the deviation, the
date and time of the deviation, the measured or monitored
data, the cause of the deviation, if known, and any
corrective action taken. Unless more frequent or
detailed reporting is required under other provisions,
including permit conditions, such written report shall be
submitted, for each calendar year, by May 1st of the
following year.
F)
This Adjusted Standard is effective upon granting by the
Board. Reynolds shall comply with the provisions and
conditions listed above within 60 days of the Board's
Opinion and Order in this matter.
G)
In the event that Reynolds ceases to own and operate this
facility, the above requirements shall apply to any
subsequent owners and operators of the facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/41 (1994) provides for the appeal of final Board orders
within 35 days of the date of service of this order. The
Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing
requirements. (See also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246 "Motions
for Reconsideration".)
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order
was adopted on the _____ day of_____________, 1995, by a vote
of _________.
10
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board