ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 5, 1989

ThE EUREKA COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,       

)

v.

)

PCB 88—85

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL      

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,        

)

Respondent.

GREGORY D. COLLINS, COLLINS & FLYNN, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, THE

EUREKA COMPANY; AND

JAMES J. O’DONNELL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ThE RESPONDENT, ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon a request for variance initially

filed on May 10, 1988, and amended August 17, 1988, by The Eureka 

Company

(Eureka). Eureka requests variance from 35 111. Adm. Code 215.204(3)(5) which

regulates volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions for manufacturing plants

with miscellaneous metal parts coating processes.

On November 7, 1986, the Agency issued two permits for VOC emissions from

Eureka’s two paint shops. These permits terminated on October 22, 1991 and

included a compliance program to be achieved by December 31, 1987. Eureka

subsequently encountered difficulty in meeting compliance by that date and

petitioned the Board for a five year variance on

May

10. 1988. On

May

19,

1988, the Board accepted Eureka’s petition and set the matter for hearing but

noted that the petition provided “indefinite plans for compliance without a

particular time—table for ultimate compliance”. (Board Order 88—85, May 19,

1988) On August 17, 1988, Eureka filed an amended petition which requested a

42 month variance and included a time-table with ultimate plans for

compliance. The Agency’s recommendation of August 25, 1988, was to grant the

variance with the conditions contained in Eureka’s amended petition. HearIng

was held August 25, 1983; no members of the public were present.

The Facility

The Eureka plant is located in Bloomington, McLean County. The facility

is located in 

industrial, coamiercial and residential area and is zoned for

aheavy industry”. McLean County is an ozone attainment county and is not

contiguous to a non-attaInment county. Eureka employs an average of 1,200

employees in the manufacturing of vacuum cleaners at its Bloomington plant.

(Pet. at 2)

95—23

-2-

VOC emissions come from two separate paint shops located ii Eureka’s

Bloomington plant. In each shop (known as Department 31 and Department 32),

miscellaneous metal parts are painted with solvent based alkyd baking enamel.

(Pet. at 3) Each shop has four automatic electrostatic spray booths and two

manual air spray booths. Paint from mixing rooms next to each shop is pumped

through transfer lines into the shops. After the parts are coated, they flow

into a baking oven to dry. (Pet. at 4)

Paint usage records, cited in Eureka’s petition, indicate that Eureka

used an average of 4,026 gallons of solvent based alkyd baking enamel per

month from May through December, 1987. (Pet. at 4) Taking into account the 23

different colors used during those months, the average emission ii pounds of

VOC per gallon of paint was 4.87, in violation of the 3.0 lb/gal VOC emission

limits under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204(j)(5). Eureka and the Agency agree

that the annualized VOC emissions from the plant are 117.6 tons, which is

45.13 tons of excess VOC emissions. (Pet. at 4, Agency Rec. at 4, R. at 92,

93) According to Eureka, ozone concentrations in their area have only

exceeded the 0.125 ppm limit in one monitoring during the last three years 3nd

that was by 0.001 ppm. (Pet. at 5)*

Past

Compliance Efforts

ifl 1930, Eureka began testing high—solids paints. However, Eureka

suspended testing from late 1981 until February, 1985. Eureka provides two

reasons for this suspension in its petition for variance: “the anticipated

compliance date of December 31, 1982 was extended until the end of 1987, and

due to the fact that it was thought that ‘compliance~might not be requ~redin

attainment areas.” (Pet. at 8)

In attempting to comply with 35 III. 

Adni.

Code 215.204(j)(5), Eureka

identified three possible options: 

installation of a thermal incinerator

as a control technology; 2) use of paints with a lower VOC content than the

conventional paints in use at the time and 3) installation of a ~‘beil”system

to improve the use of high—solids paints, if chosen as the compliant coating.

(Pet. at 25,26) Eureka rejected installation of thermal incinerators because

the cost of installation and operation was beyond its financial means; the

purchase price for each paint shop was estimated at $1,365,000, plus an

installation cost of $175,000. The operational costs for each incinerator was

estimated at $49,580 per year. (Pet. at 25, Pet. Grp. Ex. 1) ~dditionolly,

Eureka asserts that there is some uncertainty whether the incinerators would

be an effective method of compliance, given Eureka’s particular exhaust

design. Eureka asserts that the incinerator is most effective at a low

exhaust air volume with tiigh concentration of solvent vapor. In contrast,

Eureka has a high exhaust air volume with a low concentration of solvent

vapor. A study could be performed to ascertain an incinerator’s potential

effectiveness under those conditions for ~5,000,which would be credited

towards purchase. (Pet. at 26) However, due to the overall costs, Eureka has

Note: According to the Board’s calculations, Eureka’s annualized 

VOC

emissions are in excess by 45.17 tons. Also, the ambient air quality standard

for ozone is 0.12 ppm not 0.125 ppm (see 35 Ill. Adin. Code 243.125).

95~~24

—3—

centered its compliance efforts primarily on the formulation of low VOC

paints.

The bell system would not be used as control technology in order to

directly reduce emissions but is used primarily to complement the use of high—

solids paints. The bell system would replace Eureka’s present spray gun

system because it breaks the paint up into fine particles and produces a

better “wrap” (edge coverage) when used with high—solids paints. Thus, the

bell system increases the utility of high—solids paints by decreasing the

amount of rejects produced and reduces the use of conventional paints with

higher VOC content. Eureka has rejected installing the bell system presently

due to cost concerns (approximately $500,000 for both shops) and uncertainty

regarding the bell system’s actual ability to SOIVC the “wrap” problem. (Pet.

at 26)

Eureka investigated four possible compliant paints: high-solids,

waterborne, powder coating and electrodeposition. Eureka decided that the

waterborne paints were too costly and its finish was unacceptable. Powder

coating had an unacceptable film appearance and handling problems. ~inaily,

electrodeposition requires huqe tanks, making color changes difficult,

according to Eureka. Thus, high-solids were chosen as the best possibility of

developing compliant coatings. (Pet, at 5-S)

Eureka explains in its petition that there were several problems in its

attempts to adapt high—solids into its paint lines: paint formulation;

incompatibility between high-solids and conventional paints in production

runs; and equipment. ifl its Plan of Compliance, Eureka proposes several means

of eliminating these problems in order to implement the use of compliant

coatings.

Proposed Compliance Plan

Eureka’s plan of compliance is set forth in its amended petition in three

major stages over a 42 month period. The first eighteen months focus on the

formulation of high—solids paints. Eureka will replace and upgrade equipment

to increase the utility of compliant paints at a cost of approximately

$86,000. in addition to the equipment changes, Eureka will conduct a

nationwide survey of coating suppliers for comoliant coatings. There are

milestone months and reporting commitments scheduled during this stage.

Eureka will also study the feasibility of installing thermal incinerators in

these first eighteen months. (Amended Pet, at 2—4)

The second stage begins after eighteen months. At that point, if

compliant paints across Eureka’s color spectrum have not been found, then

Eureka will install a bell system or an incinerator in its paint shop with the

highest volume of emissions. Eureka anticipates that the use of plastics 

will

eliminate the need for the second paint shop. However, Eureka is not basing

its ability to achieve compliance on the developing use of plastics because of

the inherent difficulty in predicting actual figures which are dictated by

“market factors such as overall growth and demand for plastic.” (R. at 67).

If Eureka does not shut down its second paint shop and does ~othave 

conioliant

coatings by the end of the 30th month, the plan will proceed to the final

stage. (Pet. at 5,6)

95—25

—4-

In the final stage, months 31—42, Eureka agrees to install either a bell

system or control technology in the second paint shop, if it is still in

operation and not in compliance. If necessary, Eureka agrees to continue

testing and formulation of paints throughout all three stages. Eureka agrees

to be in compliance no later than at the end of the 42 month variance.

(Amended Pet, at 7)

Alleged Hardship

Eureka asserts that ‘it does not have enough high—solids paints which meet

Agency limitations and Eureka’s quality standards. (R. at 71) Therefore,

Eureka insists that it must be able to use non—compliant paints in order to

meet production demands during the variance period. (R. at 71) Consequently,

Eureka’s only means of achieving compliance right now is to purchase and

install thermal incinerators, at a cost of over $3 million for both paint

shops. Eureka argues that this would be an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship. (R. at 71)

Asserted Envtronmentai Effect of Emissions

Eureka asserts that the variance will not have a significant

environmental impact because: a) its facility is in an attainment county and

not contiguous to a non—attainment county; b) monitored ozone levels show that

its past emissions have not caused ozone proolems: and c) its actua emissions

will not increase during the term of variance. (R. at 19). The Agency notes

that its records do not contain any citizen complaints or inquiries regarding

Eureka’s facility (Agency Rec. at 2) and concludes that “Eureka’s emissions

should not cause any violations of the NMQS.” (Agency Rec. at 3)

Agency Recommendation

The Agency recommends that the Board grant the variance with the

conditions proposed by Eureka in its Amended Petition. The Agency also

requests that Eureka make progress reports to the Agency every three months

for the duration of the variance. (Agency Rec. at 5)

Concl us ion

The time lost by, and Eureka’s less than fully oersuasive reasons for,

the suspension of its compliance efforts From late 1981 Ufltji February 1985

suggest that Eureka’s hardshio in significant measure is self—imposed.

Further, the Board notes the absence of any explanation by Eureka for its

failure to timely file the variance petition before the December 31, 1987

deadline. However, since early 1985, Eureka has worked diligently to come

into compliance. On balance, tne Board is persuaded that it is most important

that Eureka get on a firm compliance plan. ifl so saying, the Board cautions

Eureka that

it w~i1not look kindly on any failure by Eureka to diligently

pursue and achieve compliance during the term of this variance.

Regarding Eureka’s proposed conditions, the Board has re-drafted some of

them to 

better insure enforceability. The Board also has declined to include

two agreed upon conditions. Fi’st, Eureka proposed that the Board retain

jurisdiction in this matter. The Board declines to do so. Neither Eureka nor

95—26

—5—

the Agency explained why retaining jurisdiction was advisable in this matter

and the Board does not itself discern what compliance benefits would accrue

from retaining jurisdiction. Given the nature of some of the conditions, the

Board does perceive a potential need for the Board to resolve disputes that

might arise over whether certain required steps have in fact been complied

with. There are ways to bring such issues to the Board apart from an

enforcement action, e.g., a variance petition.

Next, the Board declines to add as a condition to the variance Eureka’s

agreement not to file for a site-specific rule change. Site-specific

petitions are separate proceedings, and the Board would address the merits

of

such a

petition in that 

proceeding. The

Board emphasizes, however, that the

filing

of a site-specific petition 

no

manner

would relieve Eureka from

compliance with the terms of

this variance.

In light of the above considerations, as well as the insignificant

environmental impact during the term of this variance, the Board finds that

Eureka has presented adequate proof that compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code

215.204(j)(5)~would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Accordingly, variance relief with conditions will be granted for the time

requested.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law in this matter.

ORDER

Petitioner, The Eureka Company (“Eureka”), is hereby granted variance

from 35 Ill.

Adrn. Code 2l5.204(j)(5) for its facility located in Bloomington,

illinois, subject to the 

following conditions:

1.  This variance will expire ~Juiy5, 1992 or at such earlier

time as compliance is achieved with VOC limitations. If

at any time during the period of

this variance, Eureka

achieves compliance under 35  

Iii.

Adni. Code

215.204(j)(5), with or without use of the internal offset

rule, Eureka shall notify the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (“Agency”) at the following address:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control °rogramsCoordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62706

By the end of this variance, Eureka shall be in

compliance with the VOC regulation applicable to its

paint shops.

2.  During the period of this variance from January 5, 1989

until

July

5, 1990:

95—27

—6-

A.  Eureka shall purchase and install any equipment

necessary to achieve compliance including new air

make—up machines, paint pumps, paint heaters and

upgrade its associated parts washer cleaning

process.

B.  Eureka shall continue testing, data collecting and

sharing results with its vendors.

C.  Eureka shall provide listing of detailed coating

specifications and testing procedures to the Agency.

0.  Eureka shall make a detailed survey of coating

suppliers using a comprehensive directory of 

formu-

lators and suppliers to the coating industry.

Eureka shall send out a letter to all suppliers and

formulators identified from the above survey, giving

the detailed coating specifications and testing pro-

cedures by March 5, 1989.

F.  Eureka 

shall

call the suppliers not responding and

document the reason(s) for no response, after April

5, 1989.

Eureka shall compile a listing of all suppliers and

resoonses, including all correspondence, by 

May 5,

1989.

Eureka shall schedule and conduct the necessary

tests for

possible compliant coatings identified by

the above-mentioned survey, by March 5, 1990.

I. If

compliant coatings have not been found for all

Eureka’s 23 colors, Eureka shall compile all test

results for all colors where

compliant coatings have

not been found, by April

5,

1990.

Eureka shall give priority in paint formulation and

testing to the two non—compliant colors that Eureka

uses most and shall identify these colors to the

Agency.

Eureka shall supply copies of all documents prepared

under items 2(E), 2(G) and 2(1) to the Agency.

Eureka shall continue its study of technically

feasible control technology, 

as well as the bell

system, as a means of achieving compliance with or

without high-solids paint. Eureka shall conclude

its study and its results shall be seat to the

Agency by July 5, 1990.

05—28

—7—

3.  If compliant coatings across Eureka’s color spectrum have

not been found by July 5, 1990:

A.  Eureka shall purchase and install a bell system in

its paint shop with the highest volume, if Eureka

determines that the bell system will be effective

under the studies conducted in item 

2(L)

above. 

the bell system is not installed, Eureka shall

determine

alternative

methods

compliance,

including but not limited to the purchase and

installation of control technology.

B. Unless Eureka installs

control technology, it 

shall

continue its  paint formulation and testing

program.

If compliant coatings have not been found

by July 5, 1990, Eureka shall engage

the services of

a coating consultant and have a thorough review made

of all the work done and data compiled on paint

formu1ation for all colors not in

compliance.

Eureka 

shall paint

at

least Sot ~f all its handle

sockets with high—solids paint meeting Board

limitations.

4.  If Eureka has not come in compliance with 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 215.204(j)(5) by July 5, 1991, and if its second

paint shop is still in existence:

Eureka shall install a bell system in its second

paint shop, if

installation 

in the first paint shop

has proved effective. However, if Eureka installed

control technology in its first paint shop, it shall

install like controls in the second shop to bring

Eureka into compliance.

B.  Eureka shall continue its testing and formulation

process and shall perform any further tests as

directed by the coating consultant referred to in

item 3(8).

5.  Beginning April 5, 1989, and every third month

thereafter, Eureka shall submit written reports to the

Agency detailing all  progress made in achieving

compliance with Section 215,204(j)(5).

To the extent

these activities

involve

testing

for

replacement

coatings, said reports shall include information on the

names of replacement

coating and the manufacturer’s

specifications, including percent solids by volume and

weight, percent VOC by volume and weight, percent water

by volume and weight, density of coating, and recornended

operating parameters; detailed description of each test

conducted including test protocol, number of runs, and

complete original test results; the quantities and VOC

95—29

-8-

content of all coatings utilized during the reporting

period; the quantity of VOC reduction during the

reporting period; and any other related information which

may be requested by the Agency.

6. Within 45 days after the date of this Order, Eureka shall

execute a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be

bound to all terms and conditions of the variance. Said

Certification shall be submitted to James 1. O’Donnell,

Enforcement Attorney, at the address specified in

paragraph one.  The 45-day period shall be held in

abeyance during any period that this matter is being

appealed. 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 form of said

Certification shall be as follows:

CERT IF I CAT ION

I, (We) 

____

__________________________________, having read the

Opinion and Drder3T~’he ilinois Pollution Control 3oard in PCB 88-85, dated

January 5, 1989, understand and accept the said Opinion and Order, realizing

that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and

enforceable.

Petitioner

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

requi rements.

ii IS SO ORDERED.

95—30

-9-

J. D. Dumelle concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby

certify                           

_______

________________________ 1989, by a vote of 

7~~)

—.

of  ~      

Opinion and Order was adopted on the S~ day

Doro~nn 

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

95—31