ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
19, 1989
RIVERSIDE LABORATORIES,
INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 87—62
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MS.
SUSAN FRANZETTt AND MR.
JAMES
J.
DENAPOLI, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF PETITIONER,
RIVERSIDE LABORATORIES,
INC.;
MS.
DIANE ROSENFELD LOPATA AND MR.
JOSEPH
PODLEWSKI APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This Opinion supports the Board
Order of January
5,
1989.
This matter comes before
the Board upon Petitioner’s
May
7,
1987,
filing of a Permit appeal.
Respondent,
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency),
denied Petitioner’s
request for an operating permit renewal on April
3,
1987 and
Petitioner has challenged that denial pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 105.102.
BACKGROUND
The uncontested facts are as
Eollows:
Riverside owns and operates
a manufacturing plant
at
411
Union Street, Kane County,
Geneva,
Illinois.
The facility
is
a
one—story building
of masonry and steel,
consisting
of 40,000
square feet; approximately 10,000 square
feet is leased
to
another
business enterprise.
Petitioner currently employs
21
people at the Geneva
facility, resulting
in an annual payroll of
$700,000.
At this plant Petitioner saturates materials composed mainly
of cellulose fibers with
a resin and solvent mixture through the
use of a
‘dip duration’ process.
The result
is an
‘intermediate
product’
which
is 40—80 percent resin by weight.
This product
is
then sold and
further processed by exposure
to heat and pressure
in enclosed molds which convert the saturated resin
fiber into
a
hard, chemically resistant,
therrnoset plastic which
is used
in
95—273
—2—
furniture, shelving and exterior marine protective products.
Petitioner utilizes four separate dip saturation product lines.
(Petition pp.
2—5.)
Petitioner
first submitted
an application for operating
permit
to the Agency on April
5,
1972.
The request concerned
five resin impregnation lines.
On May
23,
1973,
the Agency
issued
the requested operating permit.
(Petition p.
4.)
Petitioner’s permit
was reviewed
in
1977 and again
in 1982.
(Resp.
Brief p.
4.)
During the latest re—application process,
Petitioner certified
that all previously submitted data was
still
true and correct and resubmitted its application
for
operating permit
on February
27,
1987.
On April
3,
1987,
the
Agency denied the permit application;
and on May
7,
1987
Petitioner
filed this appeal.
The Agency denial
of April
3,
1987 referenced three Board
regulations
as the reasons why the request was being denied.
The
reference regulations were
35
111. Adm Code 201.157,
201.160 and
215.204(c).
Pursuant
to notice, hearings were held
on July
13, and
14,
1988
in Geneva,
Illinois.
At hearing Petitioner called three
witnesses.
The first,
Mr. Kenneth Guilette,
is the president of
Riverside Laboratories,
Inc.;
the second,
Mr. Christopher
Romaine,
is the permit analyst who reviewed Petitioner’s
application; the third witness was Mr.
Daniel Goodwin,
a private
consultant.
Respondent called only Mr. Romaine.
During the
hearing,
four non—party,
private citizens appeared and submitted
their
statements into the record.
These persons were Ms. Jane
McMurray,
Mr. John Schneider,
Mr. Robert Keriyon and Mr.
John
Brayton.
Petitioner’s first witness, Mr. Kenneth Guilette, holds
a
Bachelor’s Degree of
Science
in Chemical Engineering and
an
M.B.A.
(R.
p.
24.)
He has extensive experience
in chemical
and
resin
industries
since. 1963,
including work at Dow Chemical
Company, Northern Petrochemical and Mobil
Chemical.
(R.
25.)
In
1986
Mr. Guilette acquired the assets
of Riverside
Laboratories,
Inc.
and became president.
Mr. Guilette fully described
the
operations,
the facility and the permit history.
(R. pp.
26—31.)
Mr.
Guilette
testified
that Petitioner manufactures a highly
specialized product:
“The company produces thermosetting laminating
papers.
A thermoset material,
as defined
in
the Modern Plastics Encyclopedia
is
a material
that will undergo
a chemical reaction by the
action of heat, catalysts,
ultra—violet light,
etc...
leading
to
a material which
is
in an
infusable and crosslinked state.
95—274
—3—
Additionally, crosslinking
is defined
as the
formation of chemical bonds between polymer
molecules.
When crosslinking
is extensive,
as
it
is
in the thermosetting resins used by
Riverside the reaction forms one infusable,
insoluble super molecule of all
the polymer
chains.
In addition,
the crosslinking
reaction decreases the specific volume of the
polymer mass and causes some shrinkage to
occur.
The crosslinking results
in
a
thermoset polymer
which
is infusable,
insoluble
and
extremely
hard
and
rigid.
Riverside’s product
is
typically 50
to 70
resin material.
The balance is paper.
The
paper serves only as
a decorative carrier
for
the product’s
resin
system.
The resin
is
reactive and contains heat sensitive catalysts
which, during
subsequent laminating operation
by Riverside’s customers, causes the resin to
crosslink.”
Riverside itself does not perform any
laminating operations.
But rather
the
thermosetting laminating papers produced by
Riverside are an intermediate product which
is
used by customers
for the production of
laminated panels.
Our customers use pressure
and heat
to bond
the resin impregnated
laminating papers
to
a wood based substrate
such
as particle board
or plywood.
In
addition
to being decorative, the laminating
paper
gives
the
final panel
a hard, durable
laminate surface which exhibits superior
resistance
to scuffs,
stains, light, heat and
moisture.
The finished laminate panel
is used
in many applications
in
the construction,
furniture, mobil home and remanufactured
products
industries.
Most applications for
these panels are kitchen and bath cabinets,
store fixtures, storage systems, commercial
and
retail point of purchase displays,
shelving
and
furniture.”
(R. pp
30—33.)
Mr. Guilette further
explained and described the raw
materials
used
as
the
following:
a special saturation grade
paper
in roll
form; polyester resin;
monomer;
flow control
agents; catalysts;
inhibitors;
release agents; adhesion promoters
and solvents.
(R.
36.)
Mr.
Guilette further described
Riverside’s manufacturing as a 4—step process consisting
of
solution preparation, dip saturation, drying and
rewinding.
95—275
—4—
Upon saturation
the impregnated web enters
a
60
ft.
long
drying oven which removes the solvents via evaporation.
(R.
42.)
There are two temperature control zones
in the dryer.
The
first stage
is controlled at 170°Fto avoid formation of
blisters
on the surface of the saturated web.
The second zone
is
controlled at
less than 200°F(if the temperature were
to exceed
220°Fthe catalysts would be thermally activated causing
the
resin system
to crosslink while
in the oven).
The saturated web
is drawn through the oven at
a production rate of 20
to 40 feet
per minute.
(R.
45.)
Upon leaving the oven the saturated web is
drawn through
a cooling section where
it
is allowed
to cool
to
approximately room temperature.
It
is then wound onto
a
finished
product roll.
To avoid
the layers of paper
sticking
to
themselves the paper
is interleafed with
a sheet of
polyethlene.
(R.
46.)
At this point
the product
is sold
to
customers who process the product further.
Mr. Guilette testified that Riverside has examined
four
different methods of reducing VOC emissions.
The four methods
were reformulating
the coating solution,
thermal incineration,
catalytic incineration and carbon absorption.
These were all
rejected for reasons of practicality, costs and safety.
(R.
p.
63.)
Petitioner next called
Mr. Christopher Romaine,
the permit
analyst who reviewed the application and made the initial
decision
to deny the requested permit.
Mr.
Romaine was called
as
an adverse witness.
(R.
87.)
Mr.
Romaine testified that he is
currently the manager of the New Source Review Unit
in the Permit
Section
in the division of Air Pollution Control.
(R. 88.)
Mr.
Romaine has been involved
in
5
to
10 permit
renewals since
1980
at the rate of approximately one permit per year.
Mr.
Romaine
stated
that in preparing
for
this permit analysis he reviewed
Board
regulations and the record
of the RACT
I proceeding.
(Contained
in rulemaking proceeding R78—3, R78—4)
(R.
99.)
This
application was reassigned
to Romaine from
a Mr.
Punzak,
a
senior
engineer
in
that division
(R.
93), who prepared
a draft permit
denial, which was already
in the file when Mr. Romaine was
reassigned
to
the case.
(R.
106.)
Mr. Romaine further
stated
that
a final denial letter was ultimately issued within
30 days
of receipt of the application.
(R.
106.)
Mr. Romaine explained
his reasons
for denial and his calculations
regarding VOM
emissions at
the plant.
(R.
113,
125.)
Romaine further
explained his analysis into the meaning of
the words
‘surface’
and
‘coating’
as these words are used
in Board regulations.
(R.
143.)
Ultimately Mr. Romaine stated that Riverside must reduce
its emissions by 34.5
in order
to comply with the paper coating
limitation
for VOMs.
(R.
150.)
Finally,
Petitioner called
Mr. Daniel
J.
Goodwin, President
of Goodwin and Associates,
a consultant
for Riverside.
Mr.
Goodwin holds a B.S.
in engineering and
an M.B.A. and worked
for
95—271
—5—
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency from 1971 until
1984
in both Water
and Air Pollution Divisions.
(R.
177.)
Goodwin testified that in
September of
1985 Goodwin and
Associates was retained by Petitioner and asked
to do the
following:
1.
Perform an
independent evaluation of the
applicability of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
215.204(c).
2.
Identify pertinent previous
determinations by
IEPA concerning
the
applicability of 215.204(c).
3.
Serve
as expert witness
in
a formal
proceeding
involving his findings related
to 215.204(c).
CR.
178.)
Mr. Goodwin concluded
that
Riverside Laboratories,
Inc.,
is
not
a paper coating operation regulated by
35
Ill. Mm.
Code
215.204(c).
(R.
179.)
In explaining
his analysis Mr. Goodwin
described his analytical scheme
as one beginning with the actual
language of the regulation; proceeding
to a review of similar
and
dissimilar
conclusions previously made by the Agency; and
continuing
through
a review of technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness of
a
regulation.
(R.
181.)
In reviewing
the language of the
regulation Goodwin noted
that
the rule applies
to “paper
lines”:
“A coating line
is
defined as
an operation when
a surface coating
is applied
to
a
material
and subsequently dried
or cured.”
The term ‘surface
coating’
is not ‘defined
in the Board
regulations.”
(R.
185.)
Goodwin testified that Riverside does not merely coat paper but
saturates
it, thereby creating
a resin matrix which surrounds the
cellulose fibers from one surface,
through the paper web
to the
other
surface without interruption.
Goodwin noted that
Riverside’s product is not
a film and the resin
is not applied as
a
thin layer, but rather
“as
a matrix which surrounds and
encloses
the fibers of
the paper
in
a continuous mass which
is
more than twice as thick as typical
coated paper.”
(R.
186.)
Goodwin next examined similarities and dissimilarities of
Riverside’s product
to typical members of the regulated community
and process.
Goodwin noted similarities such as
a paper
substrate that
is coated with
a solid material which
is dissolved
in solvent; and the coated sheet
is dried
in
an oven and then
wound
into rolls.
Goodwin highlighted
the following differences
between Riverside and
a ‘typical’
paper
coater:
1.
Riverside uses saturation grade paper.
This paper
is designed specifically to be
95—277
—6—
amenable
to
complete
saturation
during
the
dip
application
procedure
employed
by
Riverside.
Technical
properties
of
saturation
grade
paper
differ
substantially
from
other
grades
of
paper
commonly
coated.
2.
The
method
of
resin
application
is
unusual.
In
the
Riverside
case,
the
paper
web
is
passed
through
a
“dip
tank”
——
i.e.,
a
trough
filled
with
resin
solution.
~hi1e
this
application
method
may
not
be
unique
in
Illinois,
it
is
so
uncommon
that
it
is
not
described
in
any
of
USEPA’s
CTGs
or
in
the
IEPA Technical
Support
Document.
The
dip
tank
method
is
necessary because complete saturation
of
the
paper
is
essential.
Dip
tanks
ordinarily
are
not
used
for
paper
coating
because
saturation
of
the
paper
is
usually
undesirable.
3.
Riverside
coats
both
sides
of
the
paper
simultaneously.
Typically,
paper
coating
processes
coat
only
one
side
at
a
time.
in
what
amounts
to
separate
coating
and
drying
operations.
4.
The
saturated
web
leaving
the
Riverside
line
is
6—12
mils
in
thickness,
which
is
considerably
thicker
than
most
coated
paper
products.
5.
The
ratio
of
the
weight
of
the
paper
to
the
weight
of
the
resin
in
the
finished
product produced by Riverside is much
lower
than
for typical coated
papers.
For Riverside’s production,
the paper
generally comprises only 30—50 percent
of
the product weight, while
the
typical
coated
paper
is
90
percent
paper.
6.
The
presence
of
silicone
mold
release
agents
in
the
impregnating
solution
used
by
Riverside
renders
catalytic
incineration infeasible and poses design
and
maintenance
problems
for
thermal
incineration
and
carbon
absorption
as
add—on
control
methods.
While
some
of
the
paper
coating operations that clearly
do fall within
the intended scope of
applicability
of
the
rule
also
use
95—278
—7—
silione
release
agents,
this
is
not
the
case
for
most
of
the
paper
coaters.
7.
Riverside’s
impregnation
solution
contains diallyl phthalate
(DAP),
a
reactive monomer which produces
crosslinking
of
the
polymeric
molecular
chains
during
the
bonding
of
the
laminating
paper
to
the
wood
substrate
by
Riverside’s
customers.
It
is
believed
that
presence
of
diallyl
phthalate
in
the
oven
exhaust
gas
stream
may
pose
a
serious
problem
of
fouling
of
the
activated carbon
if
a carbon absorption
control system were used.
The presence
of
DAP
in
the
exhaust
stream,
therefore,
differentiates the Riverside process from
most paper coaters
in an
important way.
8.
There
is
no
curing
of
the
resin
in
the
drying process;
rather, the curing
takes
place
in a subsequent process operated by
Riverside’s customers.
Usually, curing
—
i.e.,
polymerization
and/or
crosslinking
of
the
resin
——
takes
place
in
the
drying
oven
of
the
coating
line.
9.
The
rate
of
drying
in
the
Riverside
process
is
diffusion
limited,
not
evaporation limited, due to the thickness
of the saturated
web.
This means that an
increase
in drying air temperature or
flow would have little effect on the
drying
rate.
Most paper coating
operations
are evaporation limited.
10.
Typically, paper coating ovens operate
in
a temperature
range up
to 450
Fahrenheit,
The maximum drying
temperature
for the Riverside
process
is
about
200 Fahrenheit,
because the
DAP and
catayst
in
the saturating solution will
cause further polymerization and
crosslinking above
that temperature.
This lower
temperature would
result
in
increased supplemental fuel usage
if
thermal
incineration of VOC emissions
would
be installed.
11.
~t
comparatively large volume of air per
unit of production
is passed through the
Riverside ovens.
This
is necessary to
95—279
—8—
prevent
occurrence
of
pockets
of
explosive solvent air mixtures.
A large
volume
of
air
also
facilitates
uniform
drying.
This
large
volume
of
air
leads
to relatively high costs
for add—on
control
equipment.
12.
The concentration of solvent vapor
in
the
oven
exhaust
gas
stream
is
low.
Because
of this,
the supplemental
fuel cost for
a
thermal
incineration system would b~
relatively great.
13.
The speed
of movement of Riverside’s
saturated web through
the drying oven
is
relatively slow,
due
to the thickness of
the saturated web and
the resulting low
rate of mass—transfer of solvent
into the
drying
air.
14.
As the dried laminating
paper
is wound
onto the take—up roll after emerging
from
the oven,
Riverside interleaves
polyethylene film with the laminating
paper
to prevent adhesion of the layers
of the finished product on the
roll.
This
is necessary because of the slight
stickiness of
the product.
The
interleaving
of coated
paper with
polyethylene
is an expensive measure and
it
is not commonly done with coated paper
products.
15.
Fugitive emissions of VOC due
to solvent
evaporation
in
storage and handling
comprise about
10 percent of
the total
VOCs used.
This
is lower
than the usual
fraction of fugitive losses due to
equipment design and material handling
methods established
for material
conservation and fire safety reasons.
This reduces
the opportunity for
relatively easy,
cheap,
reductions
in
fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions
for coating plants are usually about
30
percent
of
total solvent losses.
16.
Riverside’s product
is
an intermediate
product which cannot be used
for
its
intended purpose without extensive
further processing
by the customer, using
costly specialized
equipment.
This
95—280
—9—
additional process
includes
a chemical
transformation which
is essential
to the
ultimate use of the product.
Most coated
papers are suitable
for ultimate use as
they come off the coating
line,
and
require only cutting and
forming.
Further chemical
transformation of
the
coating material
is
rare.
17.
Riverside’s products have
a definite
shelf life of six months, and
then only
if storage
temperatures are kept below 70
Fahrenheit.
Most coated
paper products
have
an indefinite shelf
life.
In summary, Goodwin concluded “the cumulative weight of all
of these differences constitutes a compelling argument that the
Riverside process
is not ‘paper coating’
within
the
intent of the
rule.”
(R.
194.)
Additionally, Goodwin stated
that it was
exactly these differences
(in operating process)
that rendered
most VOM
reducing options
infeasible; and
he explained
four
methods reviewed; thermal incineration, catalytic incineration,
carbon adsorption,
and coating reformulation.
(R.
195.)
Goodwin
concluded that “there
is
no technology available that will
clearly enable Riverside Laboratories
to comply with
a
2.9
pound/gallon VOC emission unit for each of
its lines.”
(R.
197.)
Finally, Mr. Goodwin examined two other facilities that IEPA
has determined
are not paper coating operations and attempted to
analogize
these
to this case at issue.
(R.
203.)
In explaining
the difference between his conclusion
and
Mr.
Romaine’s, Goodwin
stated that Mr. Romaine’s analysis failed
to look beyond
the
language of the regulation
to find the Board’s ultimate intent.
(R.
206.)
At hearing and
in
its brief,
the Agency objected
to
the
introduction of Goodwin’s testimony claiming
that the information
contained
therein was not made available
to
the Agency and
therefore
inadmissible.
In support of this contention the Agency
cited City of
East Moline
v.
!EPA,
PCB 86—218, decided
September
8,
1988.
To this extent
the Agency’s reliance
is misplaced.
Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
9 comprises an exhibit contained
in
the Agency Record.
As such this document was
in the Agency’s
possession when making
its decision on the permit application.
Goodwin’s
1985 report contains detailed
information on
Riverside’s Manufacturing operations; compares those operations
to typical paper coating operations;
and contains Goodwin’s
study,
review and explanation of his conclusion that Riverside
was not subject
to
the papercoating regulations set
forth at
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 215.204(c).
95—281
—10—
In reviewing the
original
(1985)
report, which
the Agency
already possessed,
and comparing this to Goodwin’s
17 point study
presented at hearing, the Board
finds that the
17 point study and
explanation was merely
a
further analysis of
facts already
presented
to the Agency.
The 1985 study contains data explaining
Riverside’s process, other
similar and dissimilar processes and
further
analyses differences and distinctions.
In large measure
this
is identical
to Goodwin’s
17 point study and explanation.
The Agency has failed to identify any facts set forth
at hearing
which were not
in the 1985 report.
An expert’s analysis
of facts previously submitted
to
the
Agency are not inadmissible pursuant to East Moline, supra.
This Board is capable of discerning
a subsequent reasoned
analysis from an attempt
to supplement
a permit record.
In this
case Goodwin’s analysis does not set forth new facts uripossessed
by the Agency when making
its permit decision.
Thus
it
is
admissible.
Respondent called
Mr. Christopher Romaine as its only
witness.
Mr.
Romaine was
the permit analyst who reviewed the
application
in
1987.
Mr.
Romaine
is currently the manager
of the
New Source Review Unit and has held that position
for three or
four years.
(R.
268.)
Mr.
Romaine holds
a bachelor’s degree
in
engineering.
(R.
315.)
Mr.
Romaine further
stated that
petitioner’s original application package demonstrated compliance
with applicable regulations.
In responding
to
Mr. Goodwin’s review of Romaine’s
report,
Romaine testified that he did not believe
that differences
in
the
~iethodof applying
the resin
to
the paper web was significant.;
although
he noted dip saturation was “an uncommon method,
certainly.”
(R 304.)
Likewise ~4r.Romaine testified
that he did
not attribute significance
to the fact that Riverside’s product
leaves
the plant
in an “intermediate state”
nor
was Mr. Romaine
convinced by the fact that since Riverside’s ovens operate
at
a
(relatively) low temperature
it shows that
it was not
intended
to
be regulated by
the paper coating rules.
Mr. Romaine further
explained petitioner’s status
in
the standard
industrial
classification
(SIC)
arid Illinois Manufacturing Directory.
Mr.
Romaine further
stated that Riverside was sent
a
“minor
permit renewal
form”
(which
is
a short document basically
requesting
the applicant
to certify that
all previously submitted
data
is
still accurate)
because the Agency did not consider
Riverside to be capable of emitting
in excess of
25 tons of VOM
per year.
(R.
358.)
As noted
above,
four members of the public attended the
hearing and entered their comments
into the record.
First,
Ms.
Jane McMurray testified against relaxing
the emission controls at
95—282
—11—
Riverside.
She described
the neighborhood
as residential
(“your
typical neighborhood
...
with lots of
kids and
...
Wheeler Park
to the east”).
(R.
325.)
Ms. McMurray testified that sometimes
her eyelids get swollen and she believes this to be caused by
Riverside.
On cross—examination Ms. McMurray admitted that there
are
also
an
auto
body
shop
and
other
coating
operations
nearby.
(R.
327.)
Next,
Mr.
John Schneider
entered his objections on
the
record.
Mr. Schneider corroborated
Ms. McMurray’s statements
concerning
the neighborhood.
Mr. Schneider also testified about
“strong odors”
and
a “lacquer smell” which
he believes are
emanating from petitioner’s facility.
Mr.
Schneider also
complained of “the lack of perimeter security at the Riverside
site.”
(R 392.)
Mr.
Schneider also mentioned excessive noise
as
bothersome;
but stated that “a
sound
barrier was
installed and
it
seemed
to be working.”
(R.
394.)
Next,
Mr. Robert
Keriyon testified in support of Mr.
Schneider’s conclusions and statements.
Mr.
Kenyon, who has
lived nearby for
24 years,
testified
that the area has changed
greatly over
the years
and that he
is concerned about industrial
hazards
arid pollutants
from nearby manufacturers
arid
industries.
Lastly,
Mr. John Brayton entered his objection onto the
record.
As
a member of
the local
fire department
Mr. Brayton was
concerned
that
a fire truck call
could
riot gain access to the
area on the Wheeler Park side.
Additionally,
Mr.
Brayton did not
like the fact that Riverside Labs does not possess a vapor
detection system.
His feeling
is that
a sprinkler system is
totally inadequate.
(R.
402.)
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
As
a preliminary issue,
Petitioner claims that it was
a
mistake for
the Agency to deny
a requested permit rather
than
issue
a more information letter pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201. 158.
The
relevant facts are that Petitioner’s permit
was
scheduled
to expire on May 18,
1987;
on
February 27,
1987,
the
application
for permit renewal was dispatched;
and on~April
3,
1987,
the denial
letter was
issued.
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 201.158 states that an application for
permit is
not deemed
filed until
all required data
is
submitted.
It further states
that if the Agency fails to notify
an applicant of an incomplete application package within
30 days
of receiving
the
incomplete package,
the effective date of filing
is the date of
the Agency’s receipt.
Finally, Section 201.158
states an applicant may treat
a notice
of incompleteness as
a
denial
for purposes of appeal.
95— 7_~3
—12—
Nowhere does Section 201.158 or any other regulation require
the Agency
to issue Notice
Of Incompleteness as opposed
to
denials; therefore Petitioner’s claim of error
is unjustified.
At most,
Section 201.158 establishes a scheme for computing
filing dates;
it does not impose
an affirmative duty on
the
Agency.
A second threshold matter
raised by Petitioner must be
addressed
at this time.
At
p.
16 of
its Reply Brief Petitioner
argues that
the Board’s Opinion
in East Moline
is in error
and
should
not
be followed
at precedent.
East Moline
is currently on
appeal
and
the Board
will not comment on this further, except
to
say that
for the
reasons set
forth
in that Opinion,
the Board
declines to accept Petitioner’s invitation
to reverse
the East
Moline decision
at this time.
PERMIT
The ultimate
issue
in
this case
is whether
or not Riverside
Laboratories,
Inc.
is
a paper coating operation subject
to yaM
emission limitations
set forth at
35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204
(C.).
On August
23,
1979
the Pollution Control Board
issued
its
opinion
in Docket.
R78—3,4.
This docket covered
the Board’s
adoption of Section 215.204(c).
The opinion explained the
relationship between
PACT
and Docket R78—3,4
as follows:
PACT and
this Proceeding
PACT has been defined as “the lowest emission
limit
that
a particular
source
is capable of
meeting by the application
of control
technology that is reasonably available
considering
technological and economic
feasibility”
(R.
43).
In response
to
the
1977 Clean
Air
Act Amendments,
USEPA has
published
Control Technique Guidelines
(CTG)
for fifteen emission source categories
that
were determined
to be sources that could
be
further controlled
by RACT
(R.
44).
The
purpose
of
this proceeding
is
to consider
the
implementation of RACT on
these fifteen
emission source categories.
PACT
is based
on
controlling emissions through
reduction rather
than through substitution.
These
reductions
are to
be achieved by retrofitting add—on
control equipment, by changing
to
water—borne
or high solids coatings
in place of organic
materials or by converting
to
low—solvent
coatings” 938—3,4 pp.
11.
9 5—284
—13—
Many of
the reasonably available control
technologies
(PACT)
regulations
were based on the control technology guidelines
(CTG’s)
documents published for selected
industrial categories.
In
the CTG for paper coating operations (USEPA 1977),
“Control Of
Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources—
Volume
II:
Surface
Coating
of
...
Paper,”
reference is made
to
the
1972
edition
of
the
U.S.
Department
of
Commerce’s
Standard
Industrial Classification
(SIC)
Grouping 2641.
However,
the CTG
cautions that “some
types of paper coating with organic solvents,
however, may not fall within any of these groups.”
In reviewing
the 1972 SIC Manual, grouping
2641 Paper
Coating
& Glazing, there
is no
reference or
inclusion of
the resin impregnation paper
product manufactured by Riverside Laboratories,
Inc.
Additionally, that portion of the
Board’s opinion
in P78—3,4
which addresses paper coating
is also lacking any reference to
Riverside’s product and
is lacking any reference to
the process
used by Riverside or
the
type
or class
of product produced by
Riverside.
That opinion,
in pertinent part,
states as
follows:
Rule 205(n)(l)(C)
Paper Coating
Paper coating
refers to the application of
a
surface coating
to paper, metal
foil, plastic
films, pressure sensitive tapes,
etc.
This
rule does not cover operations
in which
a
material, such
as plastic,
is obtained
in
sheets and/or
rolls
and converted into
a
package
(P.
1526—7).
Rotogravure is
considered
to be printing
in this case and
therefore will
be covered by a different
rule
(R.
517)
since equipment that
is used for
printing and paper coating
is excluded from
this rule.
Examples of paper coating products
include adhesive tapes; adhesive labels;
decorated, coated
and glazed paper; book
coverings; office photocopier
paper; carbon
paper;
typewriter ribbons and photographic
film
(P.
515) methods of compliance include
incineration, carbon adsorption and
substitution of low solvent
or water—based
coatings
(P78—3,4 p.
19).
Clearly the regulation was directed toward “tne application
of
a surface coating
to paper.”
The
evidence
in
this case
demonstrates that whatever Riverside’s process
is,
it
is not
a
surface coater
regulated by Section
215.204(c).
Petitioner
Saturates materials composed mainly of cellulose fibers with
a
resin and solvent mixture,
via
a dip saturation process.
Pet’n
p.
2.
Although
it
is true
that the surface must necessarily
become coated,
this is not
the
type of coating process
the Board
contemplated
in promulgating Section 215.204(c).
95—285
—14—
That this
is true
is highlighted by the fact that
a more
recent edition of the SIC manual
addressed the
issue of coating
and laminated paper manufacturers not regulated
by PACT.
New SIC
number 2672 Coated
and Laminated
Paper, Not Elsewhere Classified
contains what might be Riverside’s product,
“Resinous Impregnated
Paper,
except
for Packaging—mfpm.”
The Board notes
that this
issue was not litigated
in this proceeding and the Board makes
no
such determination at this time.
The language of the Opinion demonstrates that the Board was
using USEPA’s CTG’s as guidance during R78—3,4.
The CTGS
in
existence at that time did not address
Riverside’s process and
it
was not until
1987
that
a SIC manual
including resinous
impregnated
paper was issued.
Clearly the Board did not intend
for Riverside’s process
to be subject
to the paper coating rules
governing resinous impregnated
paper.
The Board
finds
that
resinous impregnated paper created via Riverside’s current
process was not
included, nor was
it
intended
to he regulated via
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 215.204(c).
This constitutes
the Board’s finding
of fact and conclusions
of law
in this matter.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
Board Members
B.
Forcade and J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted on
the
/~‘~-
day of
~
,
1989,
by
a vote
of
~
-
.
~
~z
Dorothy
M.
Gury~, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
95—286
