ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 25,
1988
NATIONAL CAN COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 87—67
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. MARK STEGER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, NATIONAL CAN
COMPANY;
MS. BOBELLA GLATZ APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
This matter
comes before the Board upon
a Petition For
Variance Extension,
filed
on May 19,
1987.
The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed
its initial
recommendation on July
2,
1987.
On July
27,
1987,
Petitioner
filed an Amended Petition For Variance; and the Agency filed
Additions
To Previously Filed Recommendation on September
17,
1987.
On November
6,
1987 Petitioner
filed
its Second Amended
Petition For Variance; and on February
17,
1988 Respondent
filed
Post hearing Comments.
Hearing was held on January
13,
1988
at
Hoopeston City Hall, Vermillion County,
Illinois.
As the matter presently stands, Petitioner
seeks
a variance
from the Emission Limitations
For Manufacturing Plants, Can
Coating, set forth at
35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 215.204(b)(6).
Pet.
p.
1.
The Agency initially opposed Petitioner’s
request
but later recommended approval
if certain
conditions were
imposed.
(R. 6).
RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER
Petitioner
seeks
a variance until December
31,
1988 from the
emission limitations of
35
Ill. Adm. Code Section 2l5.204(b)(6),
which limits emissions of volatile organic matter
to
3.7
lb/gal.
Petitioner seeks
a variance allowing
the emission of 4.4
lb/gal
of VOM for the duration of
the variance.
Pet.
p.
7.
The asserted purpose
of the variance
is
to allow Petitioner
sufficient time
to replace
the currently used non—compliant end—
86—345
—2—
sealing compounds.
Petitioner states
that
if the anticipated
reformulated compound is unacceptable,
it will
install sufficient
control
technology
in order
to achieve compliance.
(R.
4).
The Agency,
although initially disapproving
of Petitioner’s
request, now recommends approval with certain conditions.
These
conditions are more fully set
forth,
infra.
BACKGROUND
National Can Corporation,
located
in Hoopeston,
Vermillion
County,
Illinois,
is
a facility of approximately 323,000 square
feet and employs approximately 155 people.
The facility
manufactures metal containers
which
are sealed by use
of
compounds containing volatile organic matter.
Hence
the
operation is regulated by 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Section 215.202 et.
seq.
Although
the facility previously utilized soldered can
side—seamers,
three new welded can side—seamers
using
compliant
side—seam stripes
have been added.
The operation currently
consists of the following:
Three
(3) welded side—seam lines
Three
(3)
solid side—seam lines
Seventeen
(17) end presses
Thirty
(30)
compound liners
Two
(2) gas fired boilers.
VOM emissions do not occur
at only one stage
in Petitioner’s
manufacturing process.
Although most VOM’s evaporate during the
drying process,
some VOM’s are emitted
later during coating and
compound application phases as well
as during conveyance
to the
packaging area.
It
is believed
that VOM emissions are largely
generated by the end—sealing compounds.
Rec.
p.
5.
Stacks are
used to exhaust VOM emissions
to the atmosphere.
Rec.
p.
2.
Business fluctuations make use of annual averages difficult
and speculative, but Petitioner’s facility currently emits
less
than 250 tons/year;
and including emissions expected during the
term of
the variance emissions should not exceed this amount.
On February
5,
1981,
the Board granted Petitioner’s
predecessor
in interest
a variance until October
1,
1984.
PCB
80—213.
That variance was subsequently extended until December
31,
1987,
in PCB 84—106.
Now Petitioner
seeks extension until
December
31,
1988.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Petitioner’s facility
is located
in Vermillion County, Grant
Township,
which
is
in attainment
for both primary and secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS
for all criteria
pollutants,
except for carbon monoxide
(which
is unclassified).
Rec.
p.
6.
86—346
—3—
According
to the construction permit application submitted
by Petitioner, estimated VOM emissions
from the two, new, end—
sealing
lines are 34.57 tons/year with
an allowable emission
limitation of 19.24
tons/year.
The increase
is 15.4 tons/year
in
excess of
the allowable limit.
However,
Petitioner has achieved
some reduction by transferring sheet coating operations
to a
facility
in Indiana.
There are no enforcement actions currently
pending against Petitioner.
VOM’s are precursors
of ozone, which can have adverse health
effects on the elderly and on persons with respiratory and
cardiac problems.
The closest ozone monitor
(in Champaign)
to
petitioner’s facility recorded one unhealthful day on June
15,
1987.
Recordings
taken at that time indicated
a level
of 0.123
ppm ozone.
However,
this event
is believed
to have been caused
by transport from the Chicago area.
Rec.
p.
6.
In all
Petitioner has reduced
its total VOM emissions by 202 tons for
the period
1979—1986.
Pet.
p.
5.
In sum, Petitioner’s facility
is not likely
to cause
significant environmental harm during
the term of
the requested
variance.
Additionally, Vermillion County is not experiencing a
significant,
local, ozone exceedance problem.
Consequently, the
Board finds
that any environmental impact caused by the granting
of this variance would be minimal.
COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES
Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition contains several
alternatives
to the use of compliant VOM end—sealing compounds.
Petitioner claims
that it considered compliance via the
installation
of
a drier capture system that drives off VOM5 prior
to packing, palletizing and warehousing.
Exhibit No.
3 attached
to the Second Amended Petition presents
a scenario utilizing a
70
capture
ratio.
The projected cost of this system is $1.4
million, with costs per ton of $2,424.
However,
the Petition
notes that a 70
capture efficiency may not be achievable.
Lower
capture efficiencies would result
in
a proportionally higher cost
per ton; and the system could require over two years to develop
and test before full
implementation.
Petitioner
also considered
the use of catalytic
incineration.
However, utilizing
this would require
a curing
room hexane concentration of
1,000 ppm, which would exceed OSHA
exposure level limitations.
This system’s projected cost was
$578 per ton of control.
The capture efficiency
is believed too
low to
be effective.
Petitioner has undertaken the testing
of new reformulated
compliant end—sealing compounds.
The first phase has been
86—347
—4—
successfully completed and the second phase has proceeded without
problems.
However, customer approval of new end—sealing
compounds
is
a lengthy process.
Approval
is not expected before
spring
of
1988.
HARDSHIP AND PLAN OF COMPLIANCE
Since
1980 Petitioner’s ratio of VOM exceedance
to allowable
has decreased markedly.
Pet.
Table No.
2.
There
is no
reason
to
believe
that this will not continue.
Although two new end—
sealing lines, which use non compliant compounds,
have been
added, Petitioner and the Agency are optimistic
that this
situation will shortly change;
Petitioner
is currently testing
a
water—based,
fat—resistant, end—sealing compound.
This compound
has no VOM.
Additionally, Petitioner has been notified by one
of
its suppliers
that
a compliant, high solids, solvent—based,
fat
resistant end—sealing compound will soon be available.
Pet.
4.
Petitioner has requested
a variance to operate new and
existing end—sealing
lines with non—compliant end—sealing
compounds
to allow time
for the manufacture of compliant
compounds.
Petitioner believes,
that it can introduce these
compounds on or before December
31,
1988.
Likewise the IEPA
believes that Petitioner
has “an excellent reformulation
possibility that may bring
it into compliance during the summer
of 1988.”
(R.
6).
Nonetheless,
Petitioner will know in April
of
1988 whether
its reformulation will
be successful.
This will provide
sufficient
time for
it to install controls
——
if needed.
This
being
the case,
the Board finds
that the Petitioner would
incur
an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship were variance not
to be
granted.
This Opinion contains
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of
law.
ORDER
Petitioner
is hereby granted
a variance from 35
Ill. Mm.
Code Section 215.204(b)(6), subject
to the following conditions:
1.
This variance shall expire on December
31,
1988.
2.
Emissions
of VOM5 from Petitioner’s Hoopeston facility
shall remain less than 250 tons/year.
3.
Petitioner
shall submit quarterly written reports
to
the Agency until December 31,
1988.
Those reports
shall detail emissions, including
a report of emission
levels
from the Hoopeston facility.
~6—348
—5—
4.
Petitioner shall submit to the Agency monthly reports
detailing
the status
of the reformulated process
regarding water—based, end—sealing materials currently
being investigated.
5.
Petitioner shall submit
a capture efficiency plan
regarding the Hoopeston facility to the Agency on or
before March
31,
1988.
The plan shall be drafted
consistent with
a document entitled “Practical Aspects
of Determining Capture Efficiency,”
a paper presented
by Mr. Dennis Crumpler,
(who
is employed by USEPA)
at
the Air Pollution Control Association’s international
specialty meeting on “the scientific and technical
issues facing post—1987 ozone control strategies.”
The
plan must include
a total enclosure system in
accordance with Exhibit No.
6, from the hearing on
January 13, 1988.
Any modifications to the procedures described
in
Exhibit No.
6 shall
be approved by IEPA and USEPA
within four months of submission of the plan.
The
effect of failure
to gain IEPA or
USEPA approval
to
these modifications within the four—month period shall
be that Petitioner must conduct
the capture efficiency
test without modifications,
as described
in Exhibit No.
6.
6.
A calibrated flame ionization detector shall
be
utilized
to measure capture efficiency.
Petitioner shall notify the Agency 20 days
in advance
of the capture efficiency testing.
Such notification
shall be supplied
to Mr. John Justice, Regional
Manager, Collinsville Office of Air Pollution Control.
The capture efficiency
test shall be conducted as
stated
in the plan previously submitted
to and approved
by IEPA.
Test results shall be submitted to the Agency
within 14 days
of the completion of
the study.
Within 45 days after
the submission of the test results
to the Agency, National Can shall submit a plan
outlining
the schedule for installation
of the control
technology eventually agreed upon as a result of the
capture efficiency study.
7.
Within 90 days after
the submission of the test results
to the Agency, National Can shall file an application
for construction permit with the Agency,
and
construction shall not begin prior
to Petitioner’s
receipt of
its construction permit.
86—349
—6—
8.
During the period of variance,
the alternative emission
limitation applicable
to National Can’s end—sealing
compounds shall
be 4.4 pounds of volatile organic
material per gallon, minus water
from a running total
of
12 months
of data.
9.
The plans and reports specified
to be submitted
to the
Agency under this variance shall be sent
to the
following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
Division of Air Pollution Control,
1340 North
9th Street,
Springfield, Illinois,
62706.
10.
Within forty
five
(45)
days after
the date of this
Order
the Petitioner
shall execute
and send to:
Ms. Bobella Glatz
Enforcement Attorney
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 9276
Springfield,
IL 62794—9276
This variance shall be void
if Petitioner fails
to
execute and forward
the certificate within the forty—
five day (45) period.
The forty—five day period shall
be held
in abeyance during any period that this matter
is being appealed.
The form of said Certification
shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We),
National Can Corporation, having read the Order
of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
in PCB 87—67, dated
February
25,
1988,
understand and accept
the said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions
thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section
41 of
the Environmental Protection
Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1985,
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 requirements.
86—350
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
______________
day ~
1988 by a vote
Iliino
on Control Board
86—35 1