ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 19,

1984

JEFFERSON ELECTRIC DIVISION,

)

LITTON SYSTEMS, INC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

PCB 84~3O

)

v.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by W.

J.

Nega):

This matter comes before the Board on the petition for

variance of the Jefferson Electric Division, Litton Systecos,~ 1nc~

(Jefferson Electric)

filed on March

7,

1984.

The Petitioner has

requested a one—year variance from the volatile organic coopound

(VOC)

emission limitations of

35

Ill. Adm~Code 215.211

(formerly

Rule 205(j)(1)

of Chapter 2:

Air Pollution Regulations) and 35

IlL

Adm, Code 215.204(j)

(formerly Rule 205(n)(J) of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Regulations)

in order to complete the development

and testing of

a 100

solid impregnation material which will be

used in place of its presently utilized impregnation

varnish.

On March

8,

1984,

the Board entered an Order requesting

additional

information

on

ozone

ambient

air quality and on the

levels

of volatile organic compound emissions.

On

April

1i~

1984,

the Petitioner filed an Amended Variance Petition in re~-

ponse to the Board’s Order,

On June 11,

1984,

the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation

which recommended that the Petitioner be granted a variance. until

December 31,

1984,

subject to certain conditions,

A hearinq ~as

held on June 12,

1984.

Jefferson Electric owns and operates a plant in Beliwood,

Illinois which employs about 300 people and has annual sales of

approximately $40,000,000.00.

(Pet.

2).

This facility has been

producing dry—type transformers since 1932.

The company also

operates two similar plants

in Athens, Alabama and Williamstown~

Kentucky.

During transformer production operations, the

Petitioner impregnates transformers with an insulating varnish

and coats the metal

surfaces of transformer hardware and

case

housing with enamel paint.

VOCs produced during these operations

are emitted through exhaust ducts in the Petitionervs roof

(Pet.

2—3;

R.

11).

59-47

---

To insulate the transformers with an impregnating varnish,

the company first submerges the transformers in the varnish.

These transformers are then raised and allowed to drain.

Subse-

quently, the transformers are placed in an oven for curing.

The

Petitioner has two varnish dip tanks which are used alternately

and six bake ovens for varnish curing operations.

(R.

6;

Rec,

2;

Pet.

2).

During the assembly of hardware and case housings for

the transformers, metal steel plates are stamped and formed.

These steel plates are cleaned either by alkali cleaning or vapor

degreasing (using 1,1,1-trichioroethylene) and then coated with

enamel paint in either the spraybooths or on a conveyorized paint

dip line using a degreaser,

dip tank and bake ovens.

(Ft.

6;

Rec,

2;

Pet,

2).

The Petitioner has two dry-type spraybooths con-

trolled with special

filters

(one used daily and the other used

occasionally) and three spraybooths

for water washing.

In addition

to the conveyorized paint line which uses a dip

tank

for

dip

painting, two batch—type

bake

ovens are used with the spraybooth

during the painting

and

enamel coating processes.

(Pet,

2—3;

Rec.

2).

Section 215.211 establishes a compliance date of December

31, 1983 and Section 215.204(j) requires that (upon

its

effective

date of December 31, 1983) the VOC emission levels from the

exterior coatings used by the Petitioner shall be limited to

3.5

pounds per gallon (lb/gal).

Jefferson Electric’s yearly consump-

tion of impregnating varnish (used to insulate tran8formers) and

enamel paint

(used to coat transformer hardware and case housings)

is

as follows:

19801

1981

*Varnish (3,9 #V~/ga1)

2734

3787

Varnish thinner

3256

4230

Paint enamel

4508

6535

Paint thinner

1978

2044

~bta1Gallons

12476

*~jpj~~

~pregnatingvarnish contains

5.6

#V(~/gal

1Data for 1980

was

given

for

6

uonths

and

extrapolated

for

one

year.

(Bee.

3).

According to the Agency’s calculations, Jefferson Electric’s

transformer processing operations resulted in actual VOC emissions

from the application of thinned varnish

(with

an

average

VOC

content of 5,6 pounds per gallon) of 42,36 lb/hr

or

38.97

tons

per year in 1983.

(Rec.

3;

R.

6),

Similarly,

the

company

had

actual

VOC

emissions from thinned colored coatings

(with

an

average VOC content 5.23 lb/gal) of 31.26

lb/hr or 28.76 tons per

year in 1983.

(Rec,

3;

R.

7).

Thus,

applying the 1983 usage figures previously mentioned,

the currently allowable VOC emission limit for thinned varnish

59-48

---

—3—

coatings would be 18.65 lb/hr or 17.17 tons per year, while the

allowable VOC emission limit for thinned colored coatings would

be 11.55 lb/hr or 10.63 tons per year according to Agency

calculations,

(Rec.

3).

Therefore,

it is necessary that VOC

emissions from surface coating operations be reduced by about

58.95

in order

to achieve the

requisite compliance.

Jefferson Electric has proposed

that it be allowed sufficient

time

to accomplish the conversion

to a 100

solids

(i.e., resin)

replacement for the impregnating

varnish and reformulation of 81

of its colored coatings to less than

25 tons

per year

(thereby

coming under the

25 ton exemption

level set forth

in Rule

205(n)(3)(A) of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution

Regulations

which

is

now delineated in 35

Ill. Mm.

Code 215,206),

(Rec.

3),

The Agency has indicated that the

Petitioner has been

engaged

in good faith efforts to come into

compliance with applicable

VOC

regulations.

The company again consulted

with three

of

its

varnish

suppliers in November of

1983 in order to acquire acceptable

substitute materials for its present varnish.

These

varnish

suppliers stated

that they have

already investigated

the

use

of

100

solids and

are now in the

final development stage

of

substi-

tuting such resins for

impregnating

varnish.

(Rec,

3).

Addi-

tionally, during December,

1983, the Petitioner contacted the

Federated Paint Manufacturing Company in order to

develop

comply-

ing paints for its colored coatings.

Although

this

paint

supplier

has

not yet furnished the necessary coatings for production

use

which are able

to meet current VOC

emission standards,

it

is

hoped that a suitable

coating

will be formulated in the

near

future.

(Rec.

4),

Thus, the Petitioner anticipates that,

although

there have been some technical problems encountered in its develop-

mental efforts,

the requisite

varnish and coatings which can meet

applicable

standards will be

developed and available sometime

after December 31,

1984.

(R.

11—17),

Jefferson Electric has also examined the possibility of

installing

various controls to

reduce the VOC emission levels,

(Ft. 7—9),

However, the

installation of such controls

at

its

colored coating

operations is not

technically

or

economically

feasible because of several emission points to be controlled

such

as spraybooths, dip tank,

bake ovens, and curing ovens.

(Bee.

4).

On the other

hand, the

installation of an afterburner at the

impregnating

varnish

operation might be both technically and

economically feasible.

Nonetheless, the Agency points out that

utilization of an afterburner would not put the Petitioner’s

facility in total compliance ‘~becauseovercompliance with the use

of the afterburner at the varnish line will not be sufficient to

offset the excess

emissions

from the colored coating operation~.

(Rec.

4),

Moreover,

the

Petitioner~splant is still required to

reformulate the

colored

coatings by about 38

and it would be

59-49

---

~economically unsound to install an afterburner as a temporary

relief when compliant varnish and coatings would be available in

less

than

one

(1) yearn,

(Rec.

4),

The company s plant is located in an industrial area of

Bellwood and the closest residences

are

located about 1200 feet

northeast of the Petitioner’s facility.

The

Agency

has

received

no complaints from

the

area residents pertaining to

Jefferson

Electric~svariance request or the

past

operation

of

the

Peti-

tioner’s plant.

(Rec.

5).

The

Petitioner’s

plant

is located in an area which

is clas-

sified as nonattainment for ozone and the closest ozone monitoring

station is located about five miles to the south in North Riverside,

Illinois.

Ozone

levels

in excess of

the

ambient

air

quality

standard of 0.12 parts per million were not exceeded at that

monitor during 1983.

(Rec

6).

The Agency has indicated that,

in its opinion, the Peti-

tioner’s compliance program

is a reasonable,

cost effective plan

that

is

intended to result

in ~more than the necessary VOC reduc—

tionsu.

(Rec,

5).

The Agency

has noted

that

the

only

means

of

achieving immediate compliance involves

the

installation

of

afterburners.

Such afterburners, in addition to being extremely

expensive to install, operate, and maintain, also consume vast

amounts of sometimes scarce natural gas.

(Rec.

5).

Additionallly,

the provisions of Section 215.106 would limit the operation of

these afterburners to only seven months a year,

so that annual

voc

emissions are likely to be greater

if

afterburners

are

used

to achieve compliance rather

than

the

proposed

reformulation,

development, and testing program.

(Rec.

5).

The

Board

points

out that,

regarding only

ozone

caused health effects,

it

is

immaterial

if VOC emissions are greater on an annual basis

so

long as they are reduced during the ozone season,

Thus, the

Agency believes that the Petitioner’s efforts to develop low

solvent or no solvent coating technology should be encouraged and

feels that Jefferson Electric’s variance request is reasonable

and provides the necessary time for product testing.

(Rec.

5),

The Agency has indicated that

it agrees with the Petitioner

that a denial of the requested variance

would

constitute

an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship

because:

(1)

Jefferson

Electric has been diligently working with its suppliers to reduce

its VOC emissions for several years;

(2)

the company is presently

engaging in good faith, diligent efforts to achieve compliance;

(3) Jefferson Electric is continually working to increase the

transfer efficiencies of its coatings

(i.e., the greater the

coating transfer efficiency, the lesser

the

volume

of

coatings

used,

thereby resulting in a reduction

of

VOC

emissions);

(4)

installation of afterburners may not be the most

environmentally

sound solution in the long run, and would

be

extremely expensive

and wasteful of natural

gas;

(5)

during periods of high ambient

ozone levels, the Petitioner’s plant would still be subject to

59-50

---

—5—

the applicable episode regulations, and

(6) when the Board ini-

tially adopted the VOC emission limitations in R80—5, it was

realized that the regulations were ~technology forcing’~and

it

was anticipated that variances for some facilities would he

needed,

(Rec,

4—5).

Accordingly, the Board finds that denial

of variance would

impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon the Petitioner

and

will

grant the requested relief,

subject to the conditions

delineated in the Order.

Although

the

Agency

recommended

that

the

Board

only grant

the

variance until December

31,

1984, the Board feels

that

the

particular circumstances of this case,

especially

the technical

problems encountered by the company as indicated in the testimony

of their engineer at the hearing

(see:

R.

10—17), sufficiently

justify the one year variance period requested by the

Petitioner.

i~dditionally,

the

necessity for obtaining the

requisite approvals

from various testing agencies (such as Underwriters

Laboratories)

also may result in unavoidable delays during the

development of

the solid impregnation material which will replace

the presently

utilized varnish.

Thus, the Board will allow Jefferson

Electric

until July 19, 1985 to come into compliance.

(See:

M?~er

Steel Drum Inc. v. IEPA, PCB 84—28,

Opinion

and Order

of

J~me

29,

1984)

This Opinion

constitutes

the

Board~s findings

of fact

and

ORDER

The Petitioner, the Jefferson Electric Division

of

Litton

Systems,

Inc.,

is

hereby granted a variance

for

its transformer

production

facility in Beliwood, Illinois until

July

19,

19~5

from

the

volatile organic compound emission

limitations

dei:Lneated

in

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code 215.211 and 35

Ill. Mm, Code

215,204(j).

subject

to

the following conditions~

1.

The Petitioner shall

submit written reports

to

the

Agency by

August 24,

1984,

and

every third month thereafter

detailing all

progress made in achieving compliance

with Sectron

215.204(j).

Said reports shall include

information on

the

names

of

replacement

coatings

and

the

manufacturer’s

specifications

including per

cent solids by volume

and

weight,

per

cent

VOC

by

volume

and weight,

per

cent water by

volume and weighty density

of

coating,

and

recommended

operating

parameters; detailed descrip-

tion 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

59-51

---

—6—

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division

of Air Pollution Control

Manager, Permit Section

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

~nvironmental Protection Agency

Division of

Air

Pollution Control

Region

1,

Field Operations Section

1701 South First Avenue

Suite

600

Maywood, Illinois

60153

2~

The Petitioner shall apply to the Agency for

any

required

operating permits by August 24,

1984 pursuant to Section 201,160(a).

3.

Within 45 days

of the date of this Order, the

Petitioner

shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency,

Division of Air Pollution Control, Compliance

Assurance

Section,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois

62706,

a

Certificate

of Acceptance and Agreement to be

bound to all terms

and conditions of this variance.

This 45—day period

shall be

held in abeyance for any period this matter is being

appealed.

CERTIFICATE

I,

(We),

—

having read

the Order of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

in

PCB 94-30

dated July 19,

1984,

understand and accept the said Order, rea1i~

zing

that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto

binding and

enforceable.

~T~erson

Electric Division,

Litton Systems,

Inc.

By: ~Aii~horized

Agent

Title

Date

IT IS

59-52

---

—7—

B.

Foreade

concurred.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

he

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

on the

/t~

day of

—,

1984 by a vote of

__________

m.

4~,

Dorothy

Illinois Pollution Control Board