ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
31,
1989
MINNESOTA MINING AND
)
MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 89—58
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. LEE R.
CUNNINGHAM AND MR. JEFFREY
C.
FORT, GARDNER, CARTON
&
DOUGLAS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER; AND
MS. SUSAN JANE SCHROEDER, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION•
AGENCY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before
the Board on a March
31,
1989,
petition by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
(“3M”)
for
variance from Subpart
QQ
of Part 215 of the air rules, more
specifically from 35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 215.946,
from April
1,
1989
to March
31,
1991,
to either modify its process or
install an
add—on control
system at its Bedford Park facility.
Subpart
QQ
regulates Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing
Processes
(“Generic RACT”);
it was adopted April
7,
1988,
became
effective April
1,
1989,
and applies to sources emitting more
than 100 tons VOM annually.
On May 11,
1989,
the Board granted
the May
1,
1989 motion
filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
for an extension of
time until May
31,
1989 to file its
recommendation.
However, by letter received by the Board on May
19,
1989,
the Hearing Officer granted
the Agency motion ~or
additional
time
to file its recommendation,
until June
16,
1989.
The Board notes
that the Hearing Officer’s extension does
not supersede the Board’s earlier action.
However,
in order
to
cure what appears
to be inadvertent error,
the Board hereby
affirms the Hearing Officer’s action.
On June
16,
1989,
the Agency filed
its recommendation
to
grant variance, with conditions;
on July
17,
1989,
the Agency
102—2 23
—2—
filed an amendment to its recommendation,
essentially consisting
of amendments to certain conditions.
Hearing was held on July
20,
1989.
3M’s variance petition concerns VOM emissions resulting from
its production of pressure sensitive adhesives at its plant
in
Bedford Park,
Illinois.
3M believed
it could comply with the 100 tpy limit by April
1, 1989, by using process modifications; however, based on a
consultant’s error, 3M learned on January 31, 1989,
that
its
emissions were over 400 tpy,
not the 126.9 tpy earlier computed.
(Ex.
2)
Given the greater emissions,
3M realized it was not
going
to be able to timely comply,
and proceeded to develop a
two
year compliance plan.
The plan commits
to installing add—on
technology, most likely thermal oxidizers,
for
81 percent
reduction of its overall emissions subject
to Subpart QQ
if
3M
cannot reduce its overall emissions below the
100 tons per year
through process changes or
redesign of
its blending operations.
3M manufactures pressure sensitive adhesives through two
different, but similar, processes,
one of which uses seven ribbon
blenders,
the other
three “moguls.”
The manufacture of pressure sensitive adhesives requires the
use of rubber,
resin, powder, dry ice and a variety of
solvents.
3M does not anticipate any change in the raw materials
used to produce its adhesives.
A blender cycle lasts fifteen
to twenty hours, and starts by
adding approximately one—third of the total solvent followed by
the initial rubber charge.
Several hours
later
the balance of
the rubber
is added.
Throughout the cycle,
solids, such as
rubber,
are loaded through the blender’s hatch,
then solvent
is
added, and,
near the end of each cycle, crushed resin
is added as
well to yield the desired viscosity.
After
a brief
final mixing,
the blender’s contents are transferred
to storage tanks.
Each
blender
is equipped with a condenser, which may have
a potential
to reduce emissions.
The moguls have a cycle
time of six to eight
hours.
A
mogul’s cycle begins
by adding rubber
through its cover
in the
absence of
a solvent.
The rubber goes through a mastication
stage, which
is followed by the addition of
resin and powder.
Only near the cycle’s end is solvent added to bring
the mixture
to
its proper viscosity.
Once obtained,
the viscous solution
is
pumped
to a storage
tank.
The three moguls are ducted to a
thermal oxidizer
to control odors,
not VOMs,
3M does
riot
anticipate installing any control equipment on the moguls.
Testing
in 1988 indicates that the blenders and moguls
emitted
370 and 45 tons of VOM per
year,
respectively,
totalling
102—224
—3—
415 tons.
Production and emission levels are steady throughout
the year.
Due to the implementation of
the proposed interim
measures, 3M anticipates a decline in VOM emissions during the
life of the variance.
3M and the Agency have agreed on a timetable for instituting
the interim measures during the term of the variance.
The
interim measures are articulated in the modified recommended
conditions filed by the Agency on July 17,
1989.
3M testified at
hearing that
it has already instituted a blender loading program
to reduce the time the hatches are open;
designed and completed
engineering drawings and requested bids for
a more effective
blender top to
reduce leakage; and has installed a small
prototype solids loading hopper above one blender and ordered
filter media to address
the problem of clogging by the resin.
If
the improved sealing results
in emissions greater than
5 tons
through each condenser,
3M will then address controls.
(R 17—19).
3M states that
it will study a closed—loop system to replace
the blenders, presently estimated to cost between $500,000 and
$5
million.
3M presently estimates that
a control system will cost
$1 million.
Environmental Impact
The 3M plant
is
in Cook County,
a non—attainment area for
ozone.
The Agency notes that the two closest monitors are at
1850 5.
51st Avenue, Cicero,
Illinois and at 84th
& Kedvale
Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois.
In
1986,
neither site exceeded the
0.12 ppm ozone standard.
In 1987,
the Kedvale monitor exceeded
the standard once,
at 0.157 ppm and the Cicero monitor exceeded
it twice,
at 0.146 ppm and 0.153
ppm.
In 1988,
the Cicero
monitor exceeded the standard twice,
at
0.126 ppm and 0.125
ppm.
In April,
1988,
the Kedvale site was closed, and the
monitoring equipment was relocated to 4500 W.
123rd Street,
Alsip,
Illinois.
The new Alsip monitor exceeded the standard
twice,
at
0.127 ppm and 0.125
ppm.
In
1989,
neither monitor has
registered excess ozone.
The Agency notes that “As
a major
volatile organic material source
in an ozone non—attainment area,
3M contributes,
to an unquantified degree,
to the
‘frequent,
pervasive and substantial’
violations of
the ozone ambient air
quality standard
in Northern Illinois
(See EKCO Glaco Corporation
v.
IEPA,
PCB 87—41
(December
17,
1987)).”
However,
the Agency
also notes
that
3M expects the VOM emissions
to decline during
the term of the variance.
3M also points out the numerous control and monitoring
systems
it has installed over the years,
including the
installation of thermal oxidizers, activated carbon absorption
systems,
etc. on its various production lines,
its record of
unquestioned compliance,
and its intent
to donate emissions
102—225
—4—
credits to the state for improvement
in air quality
(Pet.
p.
10,
11).
Compliance with Federal Law
Until the applicable rules have been approved by the USEPA
as part of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP),
the Agency does
not believe that the variance needs to be submitted as a SIP
revision,
and, should Section 215.946 be approved, the variance
would be approvable as a SIP.
In so saying,
the Agency
references
52 Fed.
Reg.
26404
(July 14, 1987),
wherein the USEPA
stated that SIP revisions containing post—December 31,
1987
deadlines may be approved if the deadline
is “fixed—near—term”;
the Agency believes that
the March 31,
1991 compliance deadline
is sufficiently “near term”.
The Agency also references
52 Fed.
Reg.
36965
(Oct.
2,
1987).
The Agency also stated that the USEPA
is taking the position that lack of timely fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1982 ozone SIP does not
in itself prohibit
SIP approval of the
rule or variance as a SIP revision as long as
all other criteria for approval are otherwise met.
(Agency Rec.
p.
4,5).
Board Conclusions:
The Board accepts the proposed compliance plan as
appropriately containing increments of progress and interim
measures to reduce VOM emissions.
While
the conditions reflect
compliance choices, depending on the success of various step-by--
step compliance methods,
the plan contains a definite commitment
to achieve compliance by March,
1991.
Considering 3M’s “near
term” compliance committment,
its quick
response to the
unexpected miscalculation of 3M’s emissions, and the reduction of
the environmental impact during the term of the variance, the
Board finds
that 3M has presented adequate proof
that compliance
with 35
Ill. Adm. Code 215.946 would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship.
Because
3M could not have realistically
earlier filed
for variance,
the Board will also start
the term of
the variance on April
1, 1989,
as
requested.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
findings of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company is hereby granted
a variance from Subpart QQ
of Part
215, specifically
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 215.946, subject
to the following conditions:
1.
This variance shall
be in effect from April
1,
1989
to March
31,
1991.
102—2
26
—5--
2.
By September
1,
1989,
3M shall institute a blender
loading
program designed to reduce the amount of time the charging
hatches are open during the loading of solids thereby
reducing peak emissions.
This program shall include, at
a
minimum, opening the charging hatches only while solids are
being added
to the blender and closing the hatches while
carts of solids are being retrieved from storage.
3.
By July
1,
1990,
3M shall install tops on each of its
blenders.
These tops will be designed
to reduce VOM losses
from the blenders, compared to current tops,
by reducing
vapor
leakage along the rim and hatch edges and through any
hinges.
After March
31, 1990,
3M shall use temporary
sealing measures
(e.g. measures similar
to those used during
testing) on all blenders that do not have new blender tops.
4.
3M shall attempt to minimize emissions through the blender
hatches by replacing hatch loading with a solids handling
system to deliver
the solids and resins to the blenders
without the need to open the hatches.
The following steps
will be taken:
a)
By January
1,
1990,
3M shall position a solids loading
hopper well above one blender
top.
By
February
1,
1990,
3M shall report,
in writing, to IEPA on the
results.
This report will include a plan,
including
dates, by which
3M will implement solids handling
system on each of its blenders,
if the hopper can be
operated effectively from this position without
plugging caused by solvent vapors.
b)
If the system
in
(1) above cannot
be utilized
effectively due to plugging, by April
1,
1990,
3M shall
install a system whereby carbon dioxide
is used as
a
purge into the dump chute from the hopper
to keep the
blender’s solvent vapors from reaching the resin
hopper.
By May
1,
1990,
3M shall report
in writing
to
IEPA on the results.
If this system can be effectively
operated without plugging,
this
report shall
include
a
plan,
including dates,
by which
3M shall install and
operate such
a system on each blender.
5.
3M shall investigate the potential
for reducing emissions
through the condensers.
By February
1,
1990,
3M shall
report
in writing to
IEPA on the results considering
the
experience with new blender tops and the solids loading
hopper(s)
to that point.
This report
shall include
the
emission reduction estimates per blender and
a plan,
including dates,
by which
3M shall provide interim
improvements for more effective condensation
of the solvent
vapors in the condenser,
to the extent possible based upon
available data.
By May
1,
1990,
3M shall submit
a final
1fl2—227
—6—
report considering further experience with new blender tops
and solids loading hoppers.
This report shall provide the
final plan for the interim improvements to the condensers on
each blenders.
These condenser improvements will be implemented if the
interim control measures listed below will
reduce emissions
by
5 tons per year per blender using methods
1 and br
2
below.
If emissions cannot be reduced by
5 tons per year
per blender using methods
1 and/or
2 below,
3M will
implement improvements
if the interim control measure will
reduce emissions by 10 tons per year per blender using
method
3 below.
Methods
1,
2 and
3 are as follows:
1.
using chilled water
in the condensers
2.
refrigerating the condensers or
3.
replacing the condensers with more effective
condensers.
3M shall implement improvements
to the condensers of each
blender as soon as possible after the blender tops are
in
place and cost estimates are received.
6.
If
3M chooses
to achieve compliance through the use of
kettles,
the February
1,
1990, written notification to IEPA
shall include
a statement as
to which interim control
measures will be pursued and why.
7.
3M shall submit
to IEPA every quarter
a report describing
in
detail the progress made in the previous three months
in:
1)
the studying and testing of various modifications of the
manufacturing process of pressure sensitive adhesives,
2)
the design, construction and installation of add-on control
equipment or new compounding equipment,
and
3)
the progress
made
in the previous three months
in employing the interim
control measures.
B.
Quarterly reports shall
be submitted to IEPA’s regional
office
in Maywood and the Permit Section
in Springfield
within
20 days of
the end of the quarter.
Illinois Environmental Protection Illinois Environmental
Agency
Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution
Division of Air Pollution
Control
Control
The Intercontinental Center
Permit Section
1701 First Avenue
2200 Churchill Road
Maywood,
IL
60153
Springfield,
IL
62702
9.
The quarterly report shall include a summary of actions
taken,
any determinations made as
to VOM emissions and
feasibility of
corftrol measures, any decision made as
to the
102—228
—7—
particular control measures
to be pursued,
the reports of
any further emissions tests performed on equipment subject
to Subpart
QQ,
and an estimate of the current level
of VOM
emissions using mass balance computations.
10)
Within 45 days of the date
of this Order,
Petitioner shall
execute and forward to Bobella Glatz,
Enforcement Programs,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276,
a Certification of
Acceptance and Agreemerit
to be bound
to all terms and
conditions of this variance.
Failure to execute and forward
the Certificate within 45 days renders
this variance void
and of no force and effect
as
a shield against enforcement
of rules
from which variance was granted.
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
I,
(We), Minnesota Mining and the Manufacturing Company,
having
read the Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
in
PCB 89—58,
dated August
31,
1989,
understand and accept the said
Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section
41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1987
ch.
111 1/2 par.
1041, provides for appeal of Final
Orders of the Board within
35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
102—229
—8—
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
____________,
1989, by a vote
of
~
.
z;~.
~4~’-~.
D rothy
M.
unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
102—230