ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 4, 1987
KING-SEELY THERMOS COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 87—154
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR. MARK FURSE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, KING—SEELY
THERMOS COMPANY;
MS. BOBELLA B. GLATZ APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT, ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelie):
This matter comes before the Board upon King—Seely Thermos
Company’s Petition For Variance, filed on October 13, 1987.
Petitioner seeks a variance from the emission limitations of 35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(j)(4) from December 31, 1987 until
June 30, 1988, in order to provide Petitioner with sufficient
time to install a new, dry painting process. Respondent,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed its recommendation
on December 7, 1987, urging this Board to grant Petitioner’s
variance request. On December 11, 1987 hearing was held in
Stephenson County, Illinois. Both parties were represented by
counsel; and no members of the public attended.
Petitioner seeks a variance from the 3.0 lb/gal. emission
limitation imposed by 35 Iii. Adm. Section 215.204(j)(4), which
states as follows:
“No owner or operator of a coating line shall cause or
allow the emission of volatile organic materials to
exceed the following:
J) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating,
4) All other coatings Kg/i
lb/gal.
0.36
(3.0)
These regulations, effective December 31, 1987, apply to
petitioner and limit VOC emissions to no greater than 3.0 pounds
per gallons used.
86—97
—2—
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, King—Seely Thermos Company, is a manufacturer
and distributer of barbecue grills, water coolers and drinking
fountains. The facility for which variance is being sought is
located two miles east of the City of Freeport, in Stephenson
County, Illinois. The nearest residences are located
approximately 1/4 mile away. Petitioner’s facility employs up to
1000 people in 467,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing plant. The
specific activity for which variance is requested is the painting
of product lines. Petitioner currently operates B paint lines
including 16 paint booths and 4 ovens. The current system
utilizes a wet paint process whereby the transfer of paint is
accomplished using volatile organic materials. The facility
currently discharges VOMs at a rate of 5.3 lb/gal., which is non—
compliant with the new limitations, effective December 31,
1987. No citizen complaints are on record against this facility
for solvent odors or other emissions from the painting
operations. As part of its investigation IEPA conducted citizen
interviews; no objections to the variance petition were recorded.
Petitioner states that the new paint system has been in the
planning stages since the new emissions limitations were first
promulgated. Petitioner states that it then immediately went to
work evaluating its current operations; assessing alternatives;
deciding upon and implementing a plan of full compliance. These
claims are uncontroverted. Petitioner states rather than utilize
stop—gap measures or move its operations thereby engendering
lay—offs it has decided to revamp its operations, building an
entirely new painting system at an estimated cost in excess of
six million dollars.
COMPLIANCE PLAN
The proposed compliance plan utilizes both wet and dry
application processes. A dry paint process differs from a wet
paint process in that the paint is transferred electrostatically,
without the use of solvents containing VOMS as a transfer
medium. The dry paint process will account for 57 of the
proposed new system; the remaining 43 will be applied with a VOM
compliant wet paint with final VOM emission levels less than 3.0
lb/gal. The proposed combined paint system is expected to result
in a VOM emission rate of 1.84 lb/gal. This is well within the
3.0 lb/gal limitation.
The following is a detailed timetable for installation and
operation of the new system:
8/3/87:
finalized building plans to contractor
8/7/87:
price quotation on finalized plans
86—98
—3—
8/12/87:
building ordered
10/1/87:
building delivered
10/22/87:
building shell erected
11/5/87:
building available for installation of
oven
12/7/87:
curing oven completed
1/11/88:
completion of all construction; begin
debugging process
6/1/88:
commence full production with new system.
It should be noted that the Petition for Variance requests a
variance until June 30, 1988
——
30 days after projected full
production status. This is explained as necessary to allow for
debugging of the completed operation process. Petitioner has
asked that an interim limitation of 5.3 lb/gal Petitioner’s
current emission rate be in effect during the period of the
variance. However, Petitioner also states that beginning April
1988, when phase—in of the new combined painting system begins,
emissions should begin to decrease significantly.
In its Petition for Variance, Petitioner explains its
estimated project cost as follows:
Total building
$970,000
Total building machinery and equipment
530,000
Total paint system machinery and equipment
4,000,000
Outside expenses
511,000
Total
$6,011,000
COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES
In its Petition and at hearing, King—Seely identified
several alternative means of compliance which it considered.
Petitioner considered combining new equipment with certain
existing equipment. Although it was argued this approach would
result in moderately lower capital costs, Petitioner determined
that mere threshold compliance would require replacement of most
of the existing equipment. Petitioner further states that such
an approach is short sighted in that the compliance obtained
would be minimal and might limit future growth and/or expansion
possibilities.
86—99
—4—
Petitioner also considered combining its operations with
those of another manufacturing facility. However, the
alternative was deemed unacceptable owing to limited capacity,
quality and operations losses and the possibility that such
interdependence might place excessive controls and limits on
production capabilities.
Petitioner also considered incinerating paint exhaust. This
alternative, however, would result in significantly higher energy
costs; excessive installation costs and no increased quality or
improvement in operating costs.
Finally, Petitioner considered “outside sourcing” painted
components. This would consist of sending component parts to a
third party for painting, then reshipping the painted product
back to King—Seely. Problems with this proposal included
increased operating costs, reduced flexibility, quality control
problems and substantial lay—offs of staff. Additionally, it was
determined that no other nearby facility had sufficient capacity
to accommodate King—Seely.
HARDSHIP AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The emissions released from Petitioner’s painting operations
are not considered toxic in the concentrations in which they are
released. Although the materials released from painting
operations do have a slight solvent odor, no odor related
complaints have been recorded. Additionally, Stephenson county
has been designated as an area for which ambient air quality
standards for VOCs have been attained. Granting of this
requested variance will not greatly impact the air quality of
Stephenson County
and
Petitioner’s compliance program, if
successful will greatly reduce the amount of VOCs emitted by this
facility.
The Agency’s recommendation, while urging approval of the
variance request, criticized the petition for its use of cost
estimates; complaining that Petitioner’s estimated data made it
more difficult for the Agency to determine the reasonableness of
the claim of hardship. However, at hearing on December 11, 1987,
Petitioner utilized the opportunity to address the Agency’s
criticisms. Petitioner’s consultant, Owen Spannaus, an engineer
with Ingersoll Engineering, Inc., explained Petitioner’s
analysis, explained the alternatives considered and explained
certain cost features associated with the compliance project.
The Board finds that Petitioner has established that
complying with the current regulations would impose an
unreasonable or arbitrary hardship. The regulations were
initially changed in 1985, but did not become effective until
December 31, 1987. Petitioner, until the recent regulatory
change, was in compliance with the regulations. Although
86— 100
—5—
Petitioner’s compliance plan urges that Petitioner be allowed to
emit in excess of the new regulation, these excess emissions will
be short lived and, ultimately, will be significantly less than
the regulatory limit. Petitioner’s request asks for a variance
until June 30, 1988 to ensure debugging of the equipment and
operation; however, there is a real chance that emissions may
begin to be reduced as early as April, 1988.
Petitioner’s emissions from painting operations are not
considered dangerous in the concentrations in which they are
being released. Additionally, Stephenson County is an attainment
area; thus Petitioner will not be contributing to an ongoing and
significant local problem. Any potential adverse environmental
effects will be outweighed by the long run, lower emission levels
achieved via Petitioner’s compliance project.
CONCLUS ION
Petitioner’s request is that it be allowed to emit VOCs at
its current level 5.3 lb/gal until June 30, 1988, at which time
emissions should be at or below 1.84 lb/gal owing to Petitioner’s
intergration of a new, dry paint process with the old, wet paint
process. The wet painting process will be using compliant
paints. King—Seely says that emissions may be reduced as early
as April, 1988 if significant operational difficulties are not
experienced. In view of the Agency’s determination that
emissions at these levels would not cause significant health risk
or environmental damage, the Board finds that granting the
requested variance would produce no significant health risk.
Petitioner’s compliance plan is fair and reasonable, it
would be unreasonable to force King—Seely to cancel or close its
operations for the short time expected until compliance is
achieved, especially since the anticipated result will be
significantly reduced VOC emissions. Petitioner has been
diligent in its pursuit of new, low emission technology.
Additionally, the Agency notes that King—Seely has been
cooperative with the Agency and can be expected to complete the
project as planned.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of facts and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
King—Seely Thermos, Co., is hereby granted variance from 35
Ill. Adrn. Code Section 2l5.204(j)(4), Emission Limitations for
Manufacturing Plants Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Product
Coating, subject to the following conditions:
1) Variance shall expire on June 30, 1988.
86—101
—6—
2) Petitioner shall build and construct a combined
painting system to achieve compliance with the
regulations at the expiration of this variance.
3) During the term of the variance, Peitioner’s emission
rates shall not exceed 5.3 lb/gal.
4) Petitioner shall prepare and send quarterly reports to
the Agency during the period of the variance which
describe and inform the Agency concerning Petitioner’s
progress in completing the compliance project described
in the Variance Petition. These shall be sent to the
following:
Mr. Dick Jennings
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
5415 N. University
Peoria, IL 61614
5) Petitioner shall obtain all required construction
permits from the Agency prior to construction of any
new painting operations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify tJ~at the above Op’ ion and Order was
adopted on
the
_____________
day of
____________,
1988 by a vote
1~
~.
Dorothy M. dunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
86—102