ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 15, 1979
PPG INDUSTRIES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 78—210
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent,
OPINION AND ORDER OF
TEE
BOARD
(by Mr. Werner):
This matter comes before the Board upon a Variance Petition
filed by PPG Industries,
Inc.
(‘~PPG”)
on August
7,
1978 requesting
relief from Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control
Regulations pertaining to the proposed conversion of the
Petitioner’s
sheet glass
plant in Mt.
Zion, Illinois to a float
glass manufacturing facility.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency’t) filed its initial Recommendation on
September
27,
1978.
After numerous preliminary motions were filed,
hearings were held on December
5 and 6, 1978 on this matter.
Subsequent to these hearings, the Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
the Hearing and Supplement the Record
(in order to introduce
additional evidence concerning the effect of its emissions on
ambient air quality standards; air quality modeling;
and technical
data on the flow of gases from various components to the stack
outlet) was granted on February 15, 1979.
On March
6,
1979, the
Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend its Variance Petition which
included a proposed compliance schedule that reflected an agreement
resulting from discussions among representatives of PPG and the
Agency.
The Agency has indicated that it has no objection to
Petitioner’s motion,
Accordingly,
the Board hereby grants the
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend its Variance Petition.
On March
9,
1979, the Hearing Officer granted the Petitioner’s Motion to
Incorporate the Record of R78-l2
(the related PPG proposed
rule—change proceeding)
into the record of the Variance proceeding
PCB 78-210
(including all the requisite evidence, testimony,
exhibits,
etc.)
,*
Concomitantly, on March
9,
1979,
the Hearing
Officer granted the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate the Supplementary
Hearing that originally had been set for a later date.
Additionally,
*On March 7,
1979, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings
in R78-12 which was granted by the Board on March 15,
1979.
33-109
—2—
on March 9,
1979,
the Petitioner filed an Application for
Nondisclosure of confidential trade secret information pertaining
to various technical data and secret processes connected with the
float glass melting furnace.
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Act
and Rule 107 of the Board’s Procedural Rules, the Petitioner’s
Application for Nondisclosure is hereby granted.
The Agency filed
an Amended Variance Recommendation on March 13,
1979 which reflects
an amicable resolution of previously existing differences between
the parties.
PPG Industries,
Inc. owns and operates a sheet glass plant at
Mt.
Zion,
Illinois,
The plant employs approximately 455 people
from the Decatur area.
The existing plant has been in operation
since 1959.
In 1977, the Mt.
Zion plant contributed more than
$11.3 million to the economy of Central Illinois with a payroll of
$7.3 million representing the largest share of that economic
contribution.
Purchases from 165 area suppliers total $650,000
while utility and transportation expenses amounted to $3.2 million.
The plant was also responsible for $248,000 in state and local
tax payments.
In 1978, PPG Industries’
plant contributed over
$12,100,000 to the economy of Illinois.
(R.
41).
The Company’s plant
is located in Mt. Zion Township, Macon
County, about
1 mile southeast of the Decatur city limits and
1 mile
west of the Mt.
Zion city limits.
Decatur Township is designated
an Air Quality Maintenance Area and a non—attainment area for
particulates.
Four stations in Decatur Township have recorded
violations of the annual primary or secondary standards
for
particulates.
Most of the land located near the facility is used
for farming.
There are a few homes scattered within a 1/2 mile
radius from the plant and a school
is
located 1/2 mile to the east.
The elevation of the plant
is approximately 700 feet with no
unusual terrain features.
The Petitioner is the largest emission
source in Mt.
Zion Township.
The township of Mt.
Zion
is currently
classified as an attainment area for total suspended particulates
and the air quality is better than national standards.
PPG Industries,
Inc. tentatively plans to replace the existing
sheet glass plant with a new float glass plant which will consist
of four main processes:
batching the raw material, melting the
raw material, refining the molten glass and finishing the formed
products.
The major raw materials include cullet
(scrap glass),
sand, soda ash, and limestone.
Minor ingredients include salt
cake, aluminum oxide,
barium oxide, boron oxide and carbon.
Minor
ingredients may exist as impurities within the major types.
In
1963,
PPG introduced the float glass manufacturing process to the
United States.
This technique is based on a new glass forming
concept in which the molten glass floats on a bath of molten tin
and
remains
untouched until hard.
This enables the glass
to be
33—110
—3--
economically produced to the high optical quality of plate glass,
without grinding and polishing combined with the fire-finished
brilliance of sheet glass.
Aside from the new glass—forming
technique, other aspects of manufacturing the glass are essentially
the same in the sheet glass and float glass processes.
The raw
material collection and melting processes, which occur before the
forming process, are the same for both the float and sheet glass
operations.
Accordingly, the major difference between the two
facilities will be
in refining the molten glass and finishing the
formed products.
The new float glass process has allowed the Company to
manufacture
a higher quality of float glass;
and, because of this,
sheet glass has lost acceptability in the marketplace, resulting
in decreased demand for sheet glass.
Recognizing this fact, PPG
Industries,
Inc.
is contemplating the conversion of the Mt.
Zion
plant from the sheet to
the float
process at a capital cost of
approximately $60,000,000
.
However,
in the event that such
conversion is not made, the Mt.
Zion plant
(which is the Company’s
last remaining North American sheet glass plant) will be shut down
because of the decreased demand for sheet glass.
Such a shut—down
would have
a severe impact on the economy of Central Illinois,
resulting in the loss of about 455 local jobs and the loss of over
$12,100,000 per year that the plant contributed to the Illinois
economy.
The production rate for the proposed float plant is estimated
at 650 tons per day compared to 370 tons per day for the existing
plant.
Each facility would operate continuously 365 days a year,
24 hours a day.
The existing facility complies with the allowable
particulate emission rate under Rule 203(b) of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution Control Regulations relating to existing plants.
The
proposed float glass plant would comply with Rule 203(b)
of the
Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations, but is unable to meet the
more strict requirements of Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution
Control Regulations relating to new facilities.
At the hearings
on the Petitioner’s requested Variance from the requirements of
Rule 203(a)
of the Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations,
evidence was introduced to show that conventional add-on control
devices used to reduce particulate emissions are unproven in the
flat glass industry for technical reasons associated with product
quality.
Other industries have been able to utilize such devices
because quality of product has not been such a critical factor.
PPG Industries,
Inc.
is currently engaged in ongoing research and
development programs which have resulted in substantial reductions
in particulate emissions and fuel conservation.
PPG Industries
introduced evidence that, based upon the air quality modeling
which was performed, the net effect on the ambient air quality in
the Mt.
Zion-Decatur area due to this conversion from sheet to
float glass will be negligible.
33—111
—4—
After a number of meetings between Agency and Company
representatives to discuss and seek resolution of contested issues
and to develop a compliance program and schedule acceptable to both
parties, the Agency filed an Amended Variance Recommendation on
March 13,
1979 which outlines this agreed upon compliance program
and incorporates a number of specific conditions to aid in the
proper administration of this compliance program.
The Amended
Variance Recommendation recommends that the Board grant the
Petitioner a Variance from Rule 203(a) of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution Control Regulations (“Rule 203(a)”)
for a period of
5 years beginning as of the date of start-up, rather than the date
of the entry of the Order.
Such a time period is consistent with
Section 36 of the Act,
since the statutory language does not
prohibit the Board from granting a Variance for a period of time
which has an effective date starting at a designated time in the
future.
Moreover,
a Variance from Rule 203(a)
should not cover
the period of time before start-up because, for that period of
time, there
is no need for a Variance because there are no
non—complying emissions.
The need for a Variance from Rule 203(a)
effective as of the date of start-up is not speculative.
PPG
Industries,
Inc.
has shown a corporate commitment to the Mt. Zion
location and, without some pollution control device or technique,
it will begin operation with an emission rate that exceeds the
limitation contained in Rule 203(a),
(See: Amended Rec.
5).
Throughout the Variance proceeding, the Agency and Petitioner
have vigorously litigated the issues of whether the use of an
add—on pollution control device,
such as an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP), will achieve compliance with Rule 203(a), whether an ESP will
adversely impact the quality of the glass produced, and whether the
ESP may adversely affect the glass melting furnace.
These issues
remain unresolved between the parties at this time.
Nonetheless,
the parties have sought and found a common ground for agreement
which will provide for a lowering of emissions and an improvement
in air quality from what PPG originally proposed, but yet would not
require PPG to install
a pollution control device which it believes
threatens its ability to manufacture flat glass at the Mt. Zion
plant.
In its Amended Recommendation, the Agency stated that it
believes that PPG should be given the opportunity to determine
whether it can successfully reduce particulate emissions by the use
of process modifications.
(Amended Rec.
3).
The Agency notes that
the Company has “evidenced a corporate willingness” to achieve
compliance under this program.
(Amended Rec.
4).
Additionally,
allowing the Petitioner to follow a course of compliance through
process modifications may have an additional environmental benefit
in that this expertise can be utilized at other PPG plants to reduce
particulate emissions.
On the other hand, requiring an add—on
control device at this time would necessitate a change from a tried,
proven, reliable and efficient combustion system to one that has
never been successfully used to produce high quality float glass.
Thus,
it appears that process modifications are currently the “most
reasonable,
economic and feasible means of reducing emissions from
the float glass melting process.”
(R,
67).
33—112
—5—
Moreover,
the specific conditions attached to the Agency’s
Amended Recommendation are designed to carefully circumscribe the
limits of the proposed compliance program.
Condition L requires
a regular reporting on a semiannual basis as to progress in
reducing emissions.
Conditions
E, G and
I require interim
reductions on a scheduled basis.
Conditions F,
H and J require
PPG to certify whether it will be successful
in achieving the
emission reductions;
if PPG cannot
so certify, then under
Condition K it must come forward with a suitable alternative
compliance program involving an add—on control device,
such as an
ESP.
Finally, Condition B requires PPG to design and build its
proposed float glass plant
in such a way that an electrostatic
precipitator or other add—on emission control device can be
installed without the retrofit costs that would otherwise be
necessary,
(See: Amended Rec.
7—8).
Accordingly,
in light of the negligible environmental impact
on ambient air quality standards,
technological considerations, and
the countervailing costs of compliance, the Board finds that
denial of the requested relief would impose an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship upon the Petitioner.
The Petitioner, PPG
Industries,
Inc.,
is hereby granted a Variance from Rule 203(a)
of
Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations for a period of
5 years with the Variance beginning as of the date of
start-up of
the Mt.
Zion float glass plant, subject to the specific conditions
delineated in the Board’s Order.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that
PPG Industries,
Inc.
is hereby granted a Variance from Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations for a period of
5 years with the Variance beginning as of the date of
start-up of
the Mt.
Zion,
Illinois float glass plant,
subject to the following
conditions:
1.
PPG submits an application for a Construction Permit by
June 1,
1979 for its proposed Mt.
Zion,
Illinois float glass plant.
2.
Such construction application should show,
in case
compliance cannot be achieved by process modifications, where an
electrostatic precipitation device
(ESP)
or other add-on control
equipment will be located at the plant and what modifications to
the operation of the plant will be necessary to allow installation
and operation of the control equipment.
33—113
—6—
3.
After start—up, particulate emissions from the proposed
plant shall not exceed 40 lbs./hr.
4.
Within 18 months after start-up, PPG shall certify to the
Board and the Agency whether, by 30 months after start-up,
particulate emissions will be reduced by process modifications
so
that such emissions do not exceed
30 lbs./hr.
5.
After
30 months after start—up, particulate emissions from
the proposed plant shall not exceed 30 lbs./hr.
6.
36 months after start-up, Petitioner shall certify to the
Board and the Agency whether, by 48 months after start-up,
particulate emissions will be reduced by process modifications so
that such emissions do not exceed 25
lbs./hr.
7.
After
48 months after start—up, particulate emissions from
the proposed plant shall not exceed 25 lbs./hr.
8.
48 months after start-up, Petitioner shall certify to the
Agency and the Board whether, by 60 months after start—up,
particulate emissions from the proposed plant will be in compliance
with the requirements of Rule 203(a).
9.
If at 18,
36 or 48 months after start—up, Petitioner cannot
certify that the next increment of particulate emission reductions
will be met in a timely manner Petitioner shall, at that time,
submit to the Board and the Agency a plan and a schedule, not
longer than 12 months,
for the installation and commencement of
operatipn of an ESP or other add—on control device which is
designed to achieve compliance with Rule 203(a).
10.
Beginning 6 months after start—up and continuing on a
semi-annual basis until final compliance with Rule 203(a)
is
achieved, PPG shall submit to the Agency a report detailing the
progress made in the previous six months towards reducing
particulate emissions.
11.
In the event that PPG has not commenced construction
(as
that term is defined under 40 CFR Section 60.2)
prior to
promulgation of a New Source Performance Standard (“NSPS”) under
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act that is applicable to float glass
plants, this Variance may cease to be effective because PPG would
be subject to the more strenuous requirement of Section 111 and the
pass-through provision of Section 9.1 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act.
However,
the Variance will remain in effect if
enforcement of the NSPS is stayed in any federal judicial action
seeking review of the NSPS,
33—114
—7
12.
PPG Industries,
Inc.
is hereby notified that,
in the
event that PPG fails to comply with the terms of this Variance,
PPG may be required to pay a non—compliance penalty pursuant to
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act of 1977.
13.
The Agency will submit to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), pursuant to Section
4 (m)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, the Variance granted by the Board in
this case
(which extends the time for final compliance beyond
July 1,
1979)
as a revision to the Illinois State Implementation
Plan
(“SIP”)
under Section 110(a) (3) of the Clean Air Act.
The
Agency will include this Variance with the SIP revisions which must
be presented to USEPA under the requirements of the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments.
14.
Within forty-five
(45) days of the date of this Order, the
Petitioner shall submit to the Manager, Variance Section, Division
of Air Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois, 62706,
an
executed Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to
all terms and conditions of the Variance.
The forty-five day period
herein shall be suspended during judicial review of this Variance
pursuant to Section 41 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The form of said certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), _____________________________ having read the
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 78-210,
understand and accept said Order, realizing that such acceptance
renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
IT IS SO ORDERED.
33—115
—8—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~ycertify the above
pinion and Order were
adopted on the
________
day of
/)-~
,
1979 by a
vote of
________
Illinois Pollut
trol Board
33—116