ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

3,

1984

VAN LEER CONTAINERS,

 INC.,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 83—133

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MR. RICHARD SANDERS (VEDDER, PRICE, KAUFMAN

 & KAMMHOLZ) APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS.

MR.

PETER ORLINSKY (ATTORNEY-AT-LAW) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RES-

PONDENTS.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (By J.

 Theodore Meyer):

On September 14,

 1983 then Petitioner, Inland Steel Container

Company,

 filed a Petition for Variance for the existing coating

operation at its steel drum manufacturing facility located at

4300 West 130th Street,

 Chicago, Cook County,

 Illinois.

 Therein,

variance from then Rules

 205(n)(1)(J), 205(j)(1) and 104(h)(1) of

the Board’s Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution was requested.

 That Chapter,

since codified,

 is now contained in 35

 Ill. Adm. Code:

 Chapter

I, Subtitle

 B, and those particular rules are found in Part 215:

Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations at Sections

215.204(j):

 Emission Limits

 for Manufacturing Plants;

 Section

215.212:

 Compliance Dates and Geographic Areas; and Section

 214.212:

 Compliance Plans.

 Inland Steel Container Company filed

an Amended Petition on November 23,

 1983.

 The Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency (Agency)

 filed its Recommendation on

January 11,

 1984 and hearing was held on January 17,

 1984.

At

hearing and before the Board,

 Inland Steel Container Company

filed a Motion for Substitution of Petitioner due to the recent

purchase of the facility by Van Leer Containers,

 Inc.

 (Van Leer)

on December 30,

 1983.

 The Board granted the motion on January

26,

 1984 contingent upon the filing of a properly amended Petition

identifying the current Petitioner, incorporating by reference

those parts of the prior petitions still accurate and including

any necessary changes of fact.

 Petitioner, Van Leer, filed a

Second Amended Petition satisfying the Board’s order on February

15,

 1984.

Petitioner’s facility, which employs approximately 400

persons, includes coating operations

 for both the exterior and

58-17

interior of metal pails,

 intermediate size containers, and drums.

Petitioners’ customers use the containers to package products

which range

 from sensitive flavorings and oils to corrosive

cleaners, paints, petroleum products, toxic pesticides, herbicides

and aggressive chemical intermediates.

 The containers’

 interior

coatings or linings are usually spray applied using clear coatings.

Extreme performance coatings are applied to the exteriors either

by spraying or by using multi—color

 flat lithography.

 With the

adoption of Section 214.204(j), the interior (clear) coatings

must contain no more than 4.3 pounds per gallon (lbs/gal) of

volatile organic material

 (VOM), and the exterior coatings must

contain no more than 3.5 lbs/gal of VON.

 Of course, compliance

may be

 instead achieved using control equipment pursuant to

Section 215.205, or alternatively demonstrated using the internal

offset provisions set out in Section 215.207 or the alternative

control strategies rules

 found in Part 202.

 Pursuant to Sections

215.212 and 215.211, respectively, a compliance plan was to have

been submitted to the Agency on August 19,

 1983 and compliance

achieved by December 31,

 1983.

It

 is not clear from the record

whether a compliance plan was timely filed.

 Nevertheless, Van

Leer alleges that it cannot comply at this time due to the unavail-

ability of compliance coatings.

 Its predecessor, Inland Steel

Container Company, considered alternatives to coating reformula-

tion including stack incineration, carbon absorption, and electro-

static spray coating.

 They either proved to be too costly or

technically unsuitable for the current operation.

 (Pet. p.

9).

Therefore, Van Leer seeks variance from the three rules

 in order

to continue producing industrial shipping containers.

The coatings currently used by Van Leer were formulated to

comply with the general rule for VON control, Section 215.301

(formerly Rule 205(f).

 They were developed at an increased cost

of $54,000 to $80,000 per year,

 depending on volume

 (Pet.

p.

7).

The following table

 lists the total VON emissions from Petitioner’s

facility using these coatings for the years

 1978 through 1982,

as

compared to the emissions which would be allowable under Section

215.204(j).

Actual

 Allowable

Year

 Emissions

 Emissions

 Excess

(IN TONS)

The Petitioner alleges in the Amended Petition that during

1982 approximately 158,125 gallons of exterior coating and 112,600

58-18

—3—

gallons of interior coating were

 used.

 The average VON content

of the interior coatings was 5.29 lbs/gal, producing emissions

totalling 267 tons.

 The average VON content of the exterior

 coatings for the same period was 4.56 lbs/gal, totaling 323 tons

(Pet. p.

6).

 The Agency,

 in its Recommendation, calculated that

the 1982 emissions were 229 tons and 357 tons, respectively.

(Rec.

 at p.

3).

 This discrepancy,

 as well as

 a discrepancy in

figures estimating allowable emissions, was discussed at hearing.

Petitioner alleged that the Agency’s calculations for the exterior

coatings failed to take into account a 10 percent reduction in

emissions due to internal combusion in the ovens.

(R.

 9—10).

The Agency did not refute this at hearing.

 Petitioner agreed

with the Agency calculations for interior coatings, admitting

that an error had been made in solid gallon calculations for the

interior coatings.

 (R. 11).

Internally, Petitioner’s predecessor has attempted to formu-

late, in cooperation with resins suppliers,

 interior coatings

within the compliance

 limit.

 These efforts, along with external

attempts, have been unsuccessful to date because, according to

Petitioner,

 the high molecular weight resins required to provide

adequate storage life do not exist

 (Pet. p.

 4.).

 The interior

coatings must satisfy the variety of customer needs described

above.

 In 1982 alone,

 Petitioner was required to apply 45 different

lining materials on an even greater number of single,

 double and

combination coat specifications.

 (Pet.

p.

3,

 Ex. IV).

 After

consultations with the United States Environmental Protection

Agency on December 13,

 1983 and various coating manufacturers,

the Agency is in agreement with Petitioner that interior coatings

within Section 215.204(j)

 compliance levels are not readily

available.

 (Rec.

pp.

 4—5).

The problems encountered in developing interior linings

satisfactory to the variety of customers’ specifications are not

as difficult with respect to developing exterior coatings.

 Over

the last three years over 70 laboratory trials of high solid

coatings have been conducted.

 Seven line trials have likewise

been undertaken and the drum paint booth modified at a cost of

$25,000

 (Pet, p.

8,

 Ex. VI).

 Further modifications at that booth

were anticipated by the end of 1983, bringing the cost to $36,000.

Compliance coatings for the black and white exterior coatings,

which constitute 62

 of exterior spray paints, have been developed

and were to be in use by December 31,

 1983.

 (Pet,

p.

8),

 By that

date, Petitioner was to have eliminated a second pail shift,

further reducing emissions.

 A second booth for drum parts has

been purchased at the cost of $85,000.

 It is designed to reduce

overspray and solvent emissions but actual reductions figures will

not be known until

 it is put on on—line.

 (Pet,

p.

8).

Petitioner’s compliance plan is primarly premised on reducing

the VON content of the exterior coatings sufficiently below the

Board’s limitation

 so as

 to offset the excess attributable to the

58-19

interior coatings.

 In addition to the progress achieved by Dec-

ember,

31,

 1983 Petitioner anticipates that by December,

31,

1984

it will have converted to 3.5 lbs/gal coatings

 for black,

 white

and gray spray paints and will have reduced the clear varnish at

its pail operations to 4.0 lbs/gal.

 By December 31, 1985,

it

anticipates that all colors of exterior coatings used will meet

the 3.5 lbs/gal

 level,

 The remaining two years of the time

requested are alleged necessary so that with the research begun

now,

 it will be able to sufficiently reduce emissions through one

or a combination of the following eight methods in order to be in

compliance

 with both the exterior and interior coating limitations.

Petitioner will explore 1)

 reducing all exterior spray paints to

3.0 lbs/gal;

 2) converting the exterior pail coating operation to

electrostatic spray;

 3) developing

 a more efficient overspray

collection system

 at all spray booths;

 4) improving the oven’s

natural incineration;

5)

 developing lower solvent interior coat-

ings,

 6) eliminating

 final varnish passes by developing no varnish

bases and inks resistant to fabrication abrasion;

7)

 improving

spray gun transfer efficiency; and 8) changing to roller coating

of pail body stock.

 (Pet. pp.

 14—15),

The Agency agreed that the investigated alternative methods

of compliance such as stack incineration and carbon absorption

were not workable,

 It further stated that compliance could only

be achieved, at this time,

 if afterburners were installed.

 Since

afterburners consume natural gas and do not have to be operated

during the non—ozone season, pursuant to Section 214,106, the

Agency believed annual VON emissions would be greater than if the

paints are reformulated.

 However, the Agency argued that Peti-

tioner should accelerate its comliance efforts,

 (Rec.

p.

5).

At hearing, that possibility was probed.

 Petitioner ex-

plained that converting all exterior colored coatings to compli-

ance levels would take until the end of 1985 due to the difficulties

experienced in spraying two high solid coatings at one time.

Further reducing exterior coatings to a

 3.0 lbs/gal level, and

interior coatings below the current level, as

 well, as engineering

the other reduction methods were anticipated to take longer than

two years.

 (R. pp. 14—17).

 Petitioner, as a formulator and

 paint buyer, claimed dependancy on outside suppliers,

 and stated

that since

it

 is not a large consumer,

 it could not effectively

accelerate their suppliers’ efforts,

(R.

p.

 18),

 Furthermore,

Petitioner pointed out that because 50 percent of the containers

produced have interior linings and 60 percent require exterior

lithography, it has difficulty in quickly achieving compliance

through the internal offset provisions or an alternative control

strategy.

 (Pet.

p.

5),

Petitioner claims that failure to receive variance would

force it to curtail

 its operation at this facility.

 It would

have to either produce and use coatings which would not satisfy

customer’s specifications or install control equipment at an

58-20

expense which would reduce its competitiveness.

 The Agency

agreed with Petitioner’s assessment of hardship and that there

would be no adverse impact on human, plant or animal life in the

vicinity of the facility since Petitioner will be required to

comply with its Episode Action Plan.

 (Rec,

pp.

 6—7).

The Board finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that com-

pliance at this time with Sections 215.204(j)

 and 215.212 would

impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

 However, the Board

is anxious that reductions in VON emissions continue as quickly

 as possible.

 Therefore, the Board will order that Petitioner use

coatings with no greater VON concentrations than currently applied,

and that

 it abide by the compliance schedule it described in its

Petition.

 Furthermore,

 the Board shall only grant variance until

the end of 1985.

 Petitioner will be required to submit such a

compliance schedule and routinely report its progress to the

Agency.

 In granting this variance, the Board assumes that the

reductions attributed to the discontinuation of the second pail

shift and conversion to 3.5 lbs/gal high solids black and white

drum coatings were in fact achieved by December 31,

 1983.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter,

ORDER

Van Leer Containers,

 Inc., Petitioner,

 is hereby granted

variance from Sections 212.204(j),

 215,211 and 215.212 in accord-

ance with the

 following conditions.

1)

 Prior to December 31,

 1984 Petitioner shall not allow

the average volatile organic material content of its exterior

coatings to exceed 4.56 lbs/gal, or that of its interior

coatings

 to exceed 5.29

 lbs/gal.

2)

 After December 31,

 1984,

 Petitioner shall use only

coatings with volatile organic material contents of 3,5

lbs/gal or less when spray—applying black, white or gray

exterior coatings.

3)

 After December 31,

 1984 Petitioner shall use clear

varnish coatings on pails with a volatile organic material

content of 4.0 lbs/gal or less,

4)

 After December 31,

 1985,

 Petitioner shall use exterior

coatings with 3,5 lbs/gal volatile organic material content

or

 less at all exterior spraying operations.

5)

 During the course of this variance, Petitioner shall

expeditiously develop reformulated coatings with reduced

volatile organic materials for both its exterior and interior

58-21

coating

 operati.ons,

 and develop

ancillary

 facilities

and

equipment

to

reduce

volatile

organic

emissions

from

its

coating

operation.

Within

days

 this

Order,

Petitioner

shall

execute

a Certificate

acceptance

and

Agreement

 be bound to all

terms and conditions of this Variance,

 Said

Certificate

shall

 he submitted to both the Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Agency at 2200 Churchill Road,

 Springfield, Ilinois

62706 and the Pollution Control Board at 309

 W. Washington,

 Chicago,

 Illinois

 60606.

 The 45 day period shall

 be held

in abeyance during any period this matter may be appealed.

The form of said Certificate shall be

 as follows:

CERTIFICATION

__________________________________

hereby

accepts

and

agrees

bound

all

terms

and

 conditions

the

Order

the

Pollution

Control

Board

in

PCB

#

 dated_______________________

Petitioner

By________________________

Authorized

Agent

Title

Date

—

July

 1984 and

every third

month

thereafter,

Petitioner

 shall submit written reports to the

Agency

 detail-

ing

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 speci-

fications

including per cent solids by

volume and weight,

per

cent

 VOC 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;

 progress in developing ancillary facilities and

equipment

 which reduce volatile organic material emissions;

and

any

other

 information which may

be

requested

the

Agency.

The

 reports

 shall he sent

the

following

addresses:

58-22

—7—

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division of

Air

 Pollution Control

Control Programs Coordinator

2200 Churchill

Road

Springfield,

IL

62706

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Region 1,

 Field Operations Section

1701 South First Avenue

Suite 600

Maywood,

IL

60153

8)

 Within 28

 days

 of the Board’s Final Order herein,

petitioner shall apply to the Agency for all requisite

operating permits pursuant to Section 201.160(a).

9)

 This Variance shall expire on December 21,

 1985.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

B.

 Forcade concurred.

I, Christan L.

 Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the~~~dayof

 1984 by a vote of

..~.

~

......

______

Christan

 L. Moffett, C~ftk

Illinois Pollution Con~crolBoard

58-23