ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

27,

1989

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF

AMERICA (Carol Stream Plant),

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 87—183

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

CONCURRING OPINION

(by B. Forcade):

I

agree with everything stated in the majority opinion, but

feel an additional comment

is

in order.

At about

the time this variance petition was being

filed,

the Board decided Ekco Glaco Corp.

v. EPA, PCB 87—41

(December

17,

1987).

The Board held that a

47 ton per year hydrocarbon

source which was unwilling

to commit

to a compliance plan should

be denied a variance.

In part

that denial was based on the fact

that Northern Illinois had a substantial air pollution problem

with ozone and that the source contributed to the problem.

The

Board found:

Ekco Glaco submits

that its VOM emissions will

not

cause

a

significant adverse

impact on air

quality.

This argument misses the point.

The

number

of

hydrocarbon

sources

in

northern

Illinois

that contribute

to the ozone problem

is

large.

That

number

includes every type of

hydrocarbon source from the automobile

to Ekco

Glaco.

It

would

be

impossible

to

conclude

that

any

one

source

“causes

a

significant

adverse impact.~

Yet

the ambient air quality

standards

are violated.

The Board finds

that

Ekco Glaco

is

a

source

of hydrocarbons which,

to

an

unquantified

degree,

contributes

to

frequent, pervasive and substantial violations

of ambient

air quality

standards

for ozone

in

Northern ILlinois.

(pp.

4—5).

In

that proceeding,

the Board found that the health based

air quality standards set under the Clean Air Act were violated

frequently,

pervasively, and substantially.

An unstated, but

well understood,

corollary

to that finding was the proposition

that to achieve compliance

with

the health based standards would

101—243

---

—2—

require additional hydrocarbon emission reductions that were

“frequent, pervasive, and substantial.”

In December of

1987,

this Board may not have known exactly how much hydrocarbon

reduction the modelling would predict,

but we knew

it would be

“substantial.”

En

a July 11,

1989 Federal Register Notice

(54 FR 29065),

the USEPA stated that the required hydrocarbon emission reduction

would be 72 percent of the 1988 emissions.

Whether or not the 72

percent figure ultimately proves

to be accurate,

it underscores

the fact that required reductions

in hydrocarbon emissions will

be “substantial.”

The point

of the preceding paragraphs

is to demonstrate that

this Board has been aware,

at least

since

1987,

of

the incredible

magnitude of the problem and the correspondingly difficult

decisions that would be required

if our air quality

is to achieve

the health based standards.

Those decisions are difficult

because they require substantial and expensive pollution

reductions

from facilities

that are not guilty of malvolence or

poor pollution control practices

in the past.

This Board cannot modify atmospheric chemistry,

it can only

choose between continued violations of health based standards or

substantial reductions

in existing hydrocarbon emission levels.

If each hydrocarbon emission source makes a “substantial”

reduction,

the burden would be shared equitably.

Each decision

to not require substantial reductions from a particular source

must be viewed

in the context of where else reductions can be

made.

Otherwise,

the problems continue.

Recently, Container Corporation of America has averaged

about 490

tons of VOM emissions per year.

It still has not

committed

to

a compliance plan.

I believe variance denial

is

appropriate.

Bill S.’~Fcrr~ade,Board Meiñber\

I,

Dorothy

M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was

submitted on the

~

day

of

~-,‘

,

1989.

~.

Dorothy M.

nn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

101 --7

‘h’!