ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
6,
1984
NATIONAL CAN CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 83~168
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
J, Theodore Meyer):
On November 15,
1983 National Can Corporation
(National)
filed a Petition for Variance
for its
facility which manufactures
crimped metal caps for the bottled beverage industry.
National
filed an Amended Petition for Variance on February
14,
1984.
Specifically, National requests variance from 35
Ill. Adm. Code
Section 215,204
tformerly Rule 205(n)(1)(c) of Chapter 2
until
December 31,
1985.
That regulation contains the emission limita~-
tion for operations such as National~s.
Attendant to that rule
are Sections 215.211 and 215.212 which contain the compliance
plan requirements and compliance date of December 31,
1983.
Combined they require that upon its effective date of December
31,
1983, volatile organic materials (hereinafter “VOM”)
contained
in the coatings utilized by Petitioner shall be limited to 4.3
lb/gal.
The Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency) filed
its Recommendation March 26,
1984.
A hearing was held July 11,
1984.
No members of the public were present and no public comments
have been received by the Board in this matter,
National owns and operates a facility at 1031 N. Cicero
Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois, which manufactures crimped metal caps
for beer and soft drink
bottles,
That
facility contains two
lithographic press
lines with
trailing
coating lines, drying
ovens, and one sheet metal
coater line
with a drying oven.
Petitioner~sfacility is located in a mixed industrial
residential area,
The nearest residences are located directly
across the street
of the facility.
The Agency has not
received
any complaints from area residents concerning this variance
request.
60-29
—2—
Furthermore,
it
is
located
in
an
area
which
is
classified
as
nonattainment
for
ozone.
The
closest
ozone
monitoring
station
is
located
at
the
Lincoln
Park
Zoo
which
is
approximately
6
miles
to
the northeast.
In 1982, the ambient air quality standard of 0.12
ppm
was not exceeded at
that
monitor.
In 1983, it was exceeded
one time.
National’s
bottle
cap
manufacturing
process
utilizes
12
different
types
of
coating
-
dependent
upon
customer
specifica-
tion.
Of the 12 coatings, 7 have VON contents in excess of 4.3
lbs/gal.
In 1983, National applied 81,751 gallons of coatings.
The resultant VON emissions were 152.5 tons/year.
National
estimates
that
in 1984, it will apply 74,890 gallons of coatings
with resultant VON emissions of 148.7 tons/year.
Applying 1983
usage
figures, the allowable VON emissions
would be 185.3 tons/year.
Applying projected 1984 usage figures,
the allowable VON emissions would be 159.8 tons/year.
Thus, on
an annual basis, National appears to be in compliance with
applicable
VON emission limitations.
However, the internal offset provisions
contained in Section 215.207 require
that
compliance be demonstrated
on a daily basis.
National alleges that
due
to scheduling limitations
on its equipment, it is currently
unable
to
achieve
compliance
every
day of
the
year.
Since
early
1983,
National
has
been
working
both
internally
and
with
its
coating
suppliers
to
develop
the
technology
necessary
to
reduce
VON
emissions.
To
date,
the
efforts
have
been
partially
successful,
but
have
not
produced
reductions
sufficient
enough
to
achieve
consistent
daily
compliance
with
Section
215.204(j)
by
its effective
date
of Decebmer 31,
1983.
In addition to investigating
reformulated
coatings,
National
also
explored
the
possibility
of
installing
an
afterburner
system.
Reformulation
was
preferable
to
the
afterburner
option
due
to
the
high
costs
of
installation,
maintenance and fuel.
While National is still investigating
various
alternatives
it
now
proposes
to
achieve compliance by reformulating as many of
its
coatings
as
possible
to
low
solvent/high
solids
and/or
water
base
coatings
and
by
applying
the
internal
offset
provisions
of
Section 215.207.
National is confident that the necessary coatings
can be developed and tested by December 31, 1985.
If, however,
the coatings do
not
become available, National ha~committed to
achieve compliance
through
the
use
of an
alternate
compliance
strategy
(bubble) or by the installation of an afterburner system.
In light of the fact that National’s facility is currently
in compliance with the VON
limitations
if
figured
on
an
annual
basis,
and
the fact that the only means of achieving immediate
daily
compliance
is
through
the
installation
of
expensive
control
equipment,
National
believes
that
d~nialof
its
variance
request
would
constitute an arbitrary and uz~easonablehardship.
ooa
The Agency does not disagree with any factual allegation
contained in Petitioner~sPetition for Variance or in the Ainend~ient
thereto, and is of the opinion that Petitioner~scompliance
program is reasonable in that it is
both
cost
effective and
should achieve the necessary VOM reductions0
(Rec.
Page 4)
The
only means of achieving immediate compliance that the Agency is
aware of is by the installation of afterburners0
In addition to
being extremely costly to install and operate, afterburners also
consume vast amounts of sometimes scarce natural gas0
The capital
cost for afterburners is $100,000 with annual operating expenses
of $140,000.
(Amended Petition Exhibit 4.1)
Moreover, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 215.106, the afterburners would only
have to be operated seven months a year.
If afterburners are
installed to achieve compliance and used for seven months, the
annual VOM emissions
are
likely
to be greater than if reformu~
lation is utilized.
For that reason, the Agency believes that
efforts
to develop low solvent coating technology should be
encouraged.
The Agency also believes that the two year variance
period requested by Petitioner is reasonable.
For the following reasons, the Agency
agrees
that a denial
of the requested variance would constitute an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship:
1) petitioner has been diligently working
to reduce its VOM emissions;
2)
the Agency believes that Petitioner~s
present efforts to achieve compliance will be equally as diligent;
3)
installation of afterburners will be extremely costly, wasteful
of natural
gas, and,
in the long run, may not be the most environ-
mentally sound solution,
Also, granting variance will not endanger
the environment of public health because during that period,
the
facility will still be subject to the episode regulations contained
in Section 244 during periods of high ambient ozone levels,
The emissions in question are volatile organic materials
which contribute to the formation of ozone.
High levels of ozone
can have adverse health effects on the elderly and persons with
respiratory and cardiac problems.
The Agency believes, however,
that the extension of the compliance deadline sought by Petitioner
should not cause any increased health effects,
Again, during the
period of the variance, Petitioner will be expected to comply
with its episode action plan which requires reductions of emissions
during periods of high ozone concer~tration.
In accordance with the provisions of Section
35
of
the
Act,
as
amended August
2,
1978,
by P,A, 80—1299, Ill. Rev.
Stat,,
Chapter 111½, Section 1035, the Boird may grant variances only
if
they are
consistent
with
the
provi’~ions of
the
Clean
Air
Act 42
U.S.C.
7401,
et seq.
Since
in the present case,
the
rules from
which Petitioner is seeking
a vari~incehave not yet been approved
by the USEPA, the Agency does not believe that the
variance,
if
granted, need to be submitted to USEPA as a revision to
the
Illinois State implementation Plan (hereinafter ~SIP”),
The
Agency has,
however, reviewed the Petition for Variance, the
60-31
—4—
Amended Petitioner for Variance,
the applicable regulations,
Illinois Annual Air Quality Reports, and all other information
which would normally be necessary to obtain approval of a revision
to the SIP by USEPA.
The Agency believes that if the Board
adopts an Order consistent with this Recommendation, the Order
should be
approvable
as
a
SIP
revision,
or
a
delayed
compliance
orders
If the variance is granted, therefore, the Agency will
submit it as a SIP revision or a delayed compliance order at such
time as USEPA approves the regulations
in questions unless the
variance has already expired~.
The Board finds that variance is properly granted under
these circumstances,
Petitioner’s emissions are less than those
allowed on an annual basis, but greater than those allowed on a
daily basis.
Although in a nonattainment area, recently the
exursions recorded at the nearby monitoring station have not
been
excessive,
Should violations occur or be imminent in the future,
Petitioner~s
contributions
to
the
same will be controlled under
its Episode Action Plan.
Finally, reformulation of coatings
represents a more practical and year around solution to the
problem.
Petitioner~sefforts should be encouraged by the granting
of variance,
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s finding of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter,
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Board grants Petitioner
variance from Section 215.204(j) from November
15, 1983 until
December 31,
1985,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
Within 28 days of the Board~cFinal Order herein, and
every third month thereafter,
Petitioner shall submit 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 coating and
the manufacturers specifications including percent solids by
volume and weight, percent VOM by volume and weight, percent
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 VOM 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
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
60-32
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Region
1,
Field Operations Section
1701 South First Avenue, Suite
600
Maywood, Illinois
60153
2.
Within
28 days of the Board~sfinal order herein,
Petitioner shall apply to the Agency for all requisite
operating permits pursuant to Section 201,160(a),
3.
On or before July
1,
1985, Petitioner shall submit an
alternate compliance program to the Agency at the addresses
specified in paragraph
(1),
~
if
it does not reasonably
expect to achieve final compliance with Section 215,204(j)
by December 31,
1985 through
its reformulation program~
Said alternate compliance program shall provide for final
compliance with Section 215~204(j)by December
31, 1985~
4,
Within 45 days of the Board~sfinal order herein,
Petitioner shall execute a Certification of Acceptance and
Agreement to be bound
to
all
L~ermsand conditions of the
variance.
Said Certification
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Agency at the addresses specified in paragraph
(1), ~
and to the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
309 West Washing~
ton Street, Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois &0606.
The
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
National Can Corporation, hereby accepts and agrees to be
bound by all
terms and conditions of the Order of the Pollution
Control Board in PCB 83—168, dated September 6,
1984.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized
Agent
Title
Date
60-33
—6—
IT
IS SO ORDERED~
Bill Forcade concurred.
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
~
1984 by a vote
of
,
Dorothy
M,
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
60-34