ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    ~4ay5,
    1988
    TRANSCRAFT CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 87—194
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    MR. JAMES O’DONNELL AND
    MR.
    WILLIAM INGERSOLL APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF THE RESPONDENT.
    MR.
    BRUCE AGNE APPEARED
    ON
    BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by Michael Nardulli):
    This matter comes before
    the Board
    in a Petition
    for
    Variance filed on behalf of
    the Transcraft Corporation
    (hereinafter “Transcraft”)
    of Anna, Illinois.
    The original
    petition was filed on December
    10,
    1987.
    In response to
    a Board
    order of December
    17,
    1987,
    an amended petition was filed
    on
    January
    18,
    1988.
    Transcraft requests variance from the Emission
    Limitation for Manufacturing Plants
    in
    35
    Iii.
    Adm.
    Code
    215.204(j)
    and from the requirement of 201.148 which requires any
    compliance plan to be
    a binding condition
    of the operating permit
    for
    the source.
    The requested period for
    the variance
    is until
    December
    31,
    1988.
    Public hearing was held on March
    15,
    1988
    at
    10:00
    a.m.
    at
    the Anna City Hall,
    123 W. Davie,
    Anna, Illinois.
    The Hearing
    Officer was Mr.
    Todd Parkhurst.
    The parties agreed that
    no
    written briefs would
    be submitted.
    The Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (hereinafter “Agency”)
    filed
    its recommendation
    to deny the request
    for variance on March
    7,
    1988.
    The Statutory
    Decision Deadline
    for the request for variance is May
    7,
    1988.
    Based on
    the record,
    the Board
    finds
    that Transcraft’s
    request
    for variance should be denied.
    The petition submitted by
    Transcraft fails
    to develop
    a timetable
    for compliance, does not
    discuss
    the issue of environmental
    impact and presents an
    inadequate
    review of alternative methods available
    to achieve
    compliance.
    The Board will not grant
    a variance without stronger
    assurances
    that Transcraft will
    be
    in compliance with Section
    215.204
    after
    the variance has terminated.
    6—65
    —2—
    BACKGROUND
    Transcraft
    is
    a manufacturer
    of platform semitrailers
    located
    in the City of Anna,
    Union County.
    The sources which are
    the subject of
    this variance are two paint spray
    booths.
    Transcraft uses approximately 37,000 gallons of paint
    per year
    with
    an average of
    5 pounds per gallon of volatile organic
    material
    (hereinafter
    “VOM”).
    Approximately 92.5
    tons of VOM
    emissions are exhausted into the atmosphere per year.
    A maximum
    of 3.5 pounds per gallon
    of VOM
    is allowed
    under Section
    215.204(j)(2) which regulates emission limitations
    for air dried
    coatings for metal products
    in manufacturing plants.
    Prior
    to
    the effective date
    of Section 215.204(j), Transcraft was
    in
    compliance with VOM Emission Regulations.
    Transcraft employs 175
    people.
    The State
    of
    Illinois was required
    to have an approvable
    ozone SIP by December
    31,
    1987.
    35 Ill.
    Adrn.
    Code 215.204(j)
    has
    not yet been approved by the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency as part of
    the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
    to attain and maintain primary and secondary air quality
    standards under
    the Clean Air Act
    (42 U.S.C.
    Section
    7401 et
    seq).
    If
    the recommended variance
    is granted
    by the Board
    subsequent
    to approval
    of 215.204(j),
    a SIP revision will
    be
    necessary for the State
    to be
    in compliance.
    PETITIONER’S COMPLIANCE PLAN
    In the petition
    for variance filed with the Board on
    December
    10, 1987 and amended
    on January
    8, 1988, Transcraft
    indicates that their ability
    to comply with the requirements of
    Section 215.204(j)
    is dependent
    on the ability of
    the paint
    manufacturers
    to
    formulate
    a “high
    solid coating” with
    a 3.5
    pound maximum VOM per gallon that would meet Transcraft’s
    requirements
    for drying time and customer satisfaction.
    No
    alternative methods
    of compliance were presented
    in the petition,
    and
    no measures
    to minimize emissions during the variance period
    were proposed.
    Transcraft’s compliance date
    of December
    31,
    1988
    is based on assurances
    from paint manufacturers
    that they would
    be able
    to formulate
    a product
    to meet Transcraft’s requirements
    by the end of
    the year.
    The Petitioner admits
    in their petition
    that the paint manufacturers cannot
    be specific as
    to when,
    or
    if,
    they will find
    a solution.
    HARDSHIP AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
    In their petition for variance,
    the Petitioner states
    that
    the denial
    of
    the variance would “impose an unreasonable hardship
    on
    their
    ability to continue manufacturing
    in
    a workmanlike and
    competitive manner”.
    The Petitioner also maintains that due
    to
    the slow drying time of the presently available
    high solid
    coatings,
    and
    the limited paint
    booth capacity of
    their
    production
    facility,
    they would
    be forced
    to slow their
    production
    if the variance
    is not granted.
    The reduction
    in
    89—66
    —3—
    production would subsequently result
    in the elimination of sixty—
    five
    (65)
    jobs and
    the laying
    of off sixty—five
    (65)
    employees.
    If these hardships
    can be shown
    to be the unavoidable
    results
    of
    the denial
    of the variance,
    there would be unquestionable
    hardship associated with the denial of the requested variance.
    However, because alternative methods of compliance were not
    submitted,
    it
    is not clear
    that
    these results are unavoidable.
    Contrasting with the issue
    of hardship
    is the issue of
    environmental
    impact.
    The materials emitted from Transcraft
    have
    a slight solvent odor.
    However,
    no odor complaints have been
    recorded.
    Additionally, Union County
    is considered
    an attainment
    area for ozone.
    The nearest ambient air monitoring station
    is
    located
    in Marion,
    Illinois,
    thirty
    (30) miles
    to the northeast
    of the Transcraft plant.
    During 1986,
    the two highest ozone
    readings at this monitoring
    station was 0.lo3ppm and 0.O95ppm.
    The standard for ozone
    is 0.l2ppm.
    Granting
    of the requested
    variance will adversely affect the air quality of Union County
    and the surrounding region.
    However,
    the region will
    still be
    an
    attainment area
    for ozone.
    Transcraft’s compliance with
    the
    standards established
    in 215.204(j) will significantly reduce
    the
    amount of VOM emitted from their facility.
    AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
    In
    its variance recommendation
    of March
    7,
    1988,
    the Agency
    argues that the Petitioner’s compliance plan fails
    to provide
    a
    timetable
    for compliance and that the target date
    of December
    31,
    1988
    is totally arbitrary.
    The Agency also maintains that the
    petition for variance
    is insufficient because
    it fails
    to supply
    the Board with information on alternative methods
    of compliance,
    cost
    of compliance, economic data
    to support claims of economic
    hardship, environmental impact or
    information on intermeditate
    measures to minimize the impact
    of the discharge of
    contaminants.
    The Agency also focuses on the fact that
    this
    compliance plan would need
    to be submitted to the tJSEPA
    as
    a SIP
    revision.
    The Agency believes that any SIP revision regarding
    this variance would be disapproved by the tJSEPA.
    For the
    aforementioned reasons,
    the Agency recommended that
    the request
    for variance
    be denied.
    However,
    the Agency does state that the
    Petitioner should be able
    to formulate an acceptable compliance
    plan by committing
    to the installation of
    a VOM afterburner
    incinerator
    or by committing
    to install
    a third paint booth to
    allow the use
    of low VOM coatings.
    SUMMARY
    The Board
    notes
    that
    the petition
    for variance
    is deficient
    in
    a number of
    areas.
    The required information
    not included
    in
    the petition
    is vital
    for the Board to determine the impact the
    variance would have,
    as well
    as to ensure
    the Board
    that the
    compliance target date will
    be met.
    Without this information
    the
    89—67
    —4—
    Board
    is hesitant to grant
    a variance.
    Therefore,
    the Board will
    deny the request for variance.
    This Opinion constitutes
    the Board’s findings
    of fact and
    conclusions of law
    in this matter.
    ORDER
    Petitioner, Transcraft Corporation,
    is hereby denied
    variance from 35
    111.
    Adm.
    Code 215.204(j)
    and 201.140.
    Section
    41 of the Environmental Protection
    ~ct,
    Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1985
    ch.
    1111/2 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.
    I, Dorothy,
    1. Gunn, Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify
    that the above Opinion and Order was
    adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ______________________,
    1988,
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    ~‘O
    .
    ~.
    Dorothy ~1.~unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Bo&rd
    89—68

    Back to top