Section 215.204 Emission Limitations forManufacturing Plants

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

17,

1987

EKCO GLACO CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

 PCB 87—41

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MESSERS JEFFREY FORT AND JAMES DE NAPOLI OF MARTIN,

 CRAIG,

CHESTER AND SONNENSCHEIN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

MR. JOSEPH R.

 PODLEWSKI,

 JR., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

This matter comes before the Board on an April

1,

1987

Petition To Extend Air Variance filed by Petitioner,

 Ekco Glaco

Corporation

 (“Ekco Glaco”), requesting

 to extend and modify this

Board’s earlier variance (granted in Ekco Glaco

 Corp.

 v. IEPA,

PCB 86—91, January

8,

 1987, hereinafter

 “Ekco Glaco

 I”)

as

follows:

 Petitioner

 seeks

 a variance extension for its used pan

reconditioning line until

 April

1,

 1988;

 and extension for its

new pan manufacturing line until November

1,

 1987.

The Board found

 in an April

 16, 1987,

 Order that Ekco

Glaco’s April

1,

 1987, petition

 to extend variance was deficient

in that it inadequately addressed

 a detailed compliance plan and

the requirements of

 federal law.

 On June 1,

 1987,

 Ekco Glaco

filed an amended petition.

 On July 6, 1987,

 the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

 (“Agency”)

 filed

 a recommendation

that variance be denied.

 On July

10,

 1987, Ekco Glaco filed

a

response

 to the recommendation.

 On August

 7, 1987, hearing was

held.

 Ekco Glaco filed briefs on September 4,

 1987,

and

September

18,

 1987.

 The Agency filed briefs on September

8,

1987, and September 21,

 1987.

Ekco Glaco seeks

 a variance from Manufacturing Plant

Emission Limitations set forth at 35

 Iii.

 Adm. Code Sections

215.204 and 215.205.

 On June

 27, 1985 this Board granted Ekco

Glaco’s predecessor’s request for variance

 from

 35 Ill.

 Adm.

Code Sections 215.204 and 215.205

 until January

1,

 1986 (Glaco

Corp.

v.

 IEPA, PCB 85—29,

 June 27,

 1985, hereinafter “Glaco”).

This order was subsequently modified until

 February 15,

 1986.

Now Ekco Glaco once again seeks variance from the same

regulations

 until November

 1, 1987 and April

1,

 1988 for its new

and used pan

 lines.

84—601

—2—

Ekco Glaco is in the business of manufacturing and

reconditioning commercial bakery pans at its plant located in

Chicago, Illinois where approximately 350 persons are employed.

Ekco Glaco’s facility manufactures approximately 1,200,000 new

pans and reconditions 440,000 used pans, annually.

 Only seventy—

five percent of new pans are coated at the Chicago facility.

The

coating process

the

 same for both new and used pans)

 consists of

twenty percent silicone resin and eighty percent solvent.

The

solvent is composed of naptha, toluene, propylene glycol, methyl

ether

 and isobutyl isobutyrate.

 Subsequently,

 a reconstituting

solvent

 is added

 to the resin coating during

 the new pan coating

process.

 This reconstituting solvent is composed of VOM naptha,

toluene and monoethers.

The new pan operation services the entire country and

overseas, but the used pan reconditioning line services

approximately 35 bakeries within a 150 mile geographic area.

Ekco Glaco’s used pan reconditioning operations, the only such

facility in the area,

 involves removal

 of heavy carbon and grease

build—up and subsequent application of the silicone coating.

The

coating facilitates easy release of bakery products from

the

baking pans.

 This reconditioning process can be completed in as

 little as

 24 hours.

(R.

 133).

 Sales associated with the used

pan reconditioning line were $714,000 for 1986.

 (R. 138).

The solvents used

 in Ekco Glaco’s operations contain

volatile organic material

 (VOMs).

 During new pan operations the

VOM emissions are generated by the coating sprayers.

 These

emissions are drawn off by a duct fan, filtered and vented

through

 a stack

 to the atmosphere.

 During used pan

reconditioning,

 VOM emissions are generated during the spraying

process and during preheated,

 curing oven operations.

 These

emissions are also vented to the atmosphere.

Ekco Glaco’s VOM emissions are regulated by Section

215.204(j) (1):

Section 215.204

 Emission Limitations for

Manufacturing Plants

No

 owner

or

 operator

of

a

 coating

 line

 shall

cause

or

 allow

the

 emission

of

 volatile

organic

 material

to

 exceed

the

 following

limitations

on

 coating

 materials,

 excluding

water, delivered

 to the coating applicator:

 Miscellaneous Metal Parts

and Products Coatings

 kg/l

 (lb/gal)

1)

 Clear coating

 0.52

 (4.3)

Pursuant to 35

 Ill. Adm. Code 2l5.2ll(a)(1), compliance with the

above limitation was required by December

 31, 1983.

 Also,

pursuant to 35 Ill. Mm.

 Code 215.122(a),

 a “Compliance Plan” was

84—602

—3—

required

 to have been submitted to the Agency, not later than

August

19,

 1983.

Section 215.205 offers, as an alternative to complying with

Section 215.204,

 the control

 of VOM emissions by either:

1.

Use

of

an

 afterburner

 system,

 provided

that 75 percent of the emissions from the

coating

 line

and

90

 percent

of

the

nonmethane

 volatile

 organic

 material

which enters the afterburner are oxidized

to carbon dioxide and water;

or,

2.

A

 system demonstrated

 to have

a

 control

efficiency

 equivalent

 to or

 greater than

that provided

 under Section 215.204.

Use of the Section 215.205 alternative compliance program does

not alter

 the August 19,

 1983,

 “Compliance Plan” submission

deadline, nor the December

31,

 1983, compliance deadline.

The question presented

 to the Board,

 as we end calendar year

1987,

 is whether

 “immediate” compliance with these 1983

regulations constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship

when balanced against the environmental impact, and whether Ekco

Glaco has a detailed plan to come into compliance.

 As discussed

below, the Board does not believe Ekco Glaco has carried its

burden and variance will be denied.

The thrust of petitioner’s argument on hardship is that Ekco

Glaco has exercised due diligence in attempts to comply but that

unforeseen problems have delayed compliance:

Ekco

 Glaco)

has

 in the past and continues to

act diligently and

 in good faith in an attempt

to

 achieve

 compliance.

 However,

 several

unforeseen problems have prevented Ekco Glaco

from

 achieving

its

 compliance

 goals.

 Ekco

Glaco)

has

 demonstrated

to

 this

 Board

 that

Ekco

 Glaco

is

 intent on achieving compliance

with the Board air regulations and that Ekco’s

Glaco

 past

 efforts

to

 achieve

 compliance

justify

the

 extension

of

 prior

 variances

granted

in

 PCB 85—29

 and 86—91.

 Ekco

 Glaco

will

 continue

its

 efforts

to

 achieve

compliance

 with

 Sections

 215.204(j)(l)

and

215.205,

 while

 Ekco

 Glaco

 submits

 that

it

will

 suffer

an

 arbitrary

and

 unreasonable

hardship if its request to extend its variance

is denied.

 (Pet.,

p.

11)

To support its position Ekco Glaco has presented factual

information on its efforts.and problems

 in obtaining

compliance.

84—603

—4—

The Agency asserts that any hardship which exists

 is self—

imposed.

 The Agency asserts that Ekco Glaco’s present

difficulties result not from difficulties

 in compliance with the

emission limits, but a consequence of prior business decisions

(Agency Brief,

 9/8/87, p.

 11).

 The Board believes this

distinction

 is critical

 to the issue of “hardship”.

The facility in question was first informed

 that it would

be

required

 to comply with the relevant VOM limits by Agency letter

of March 21,

 1983.

 (Glaco,

 PCB 85—29, Agency Recommendation,

p.

3).

 Since the original notification, the facility has changed

from Ekco Products,

 Inc., to Glaco Corporation, to Ekco Glaco

 Corporation.

 Since the original notification, the facility has

argued that the rule does not apply to their operations,

 agreed

that the rule does apply,

 chosen consultants, prepared reports,

hired contractors, purchased equipment, changed consultants,

evaluated alternatives, chosen

 to take the old pan line out of

operation,

 chosen

 to leave the old pan line

 in operation.

In

summary, the facility has,

 since March 21,

 1983, made

 a series of

business decisions on how to proceed towards compliance.

 When

those decisions did not achieve compliance, the facility has come

to this Board for additional

 time.

 As we approach the fifth

anniversary of the original notification, Ekco Glaco

 is seeking

additional time to further evaluate alternatives and implement

compliance.

 The Board believes that Ekco Glaco’s present

problems do not arise from the difficulties posed

 by “immediate

compliance”.

 Ekco Glaco’s problems arise from the delay caused

by decisions it has made

 in attempting

 to secure compliance and

its failure to commit to

 a particular compliance option.

The

Board cannot find that those problems constitute

 an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship, especially when the potential for

environmental harm and lack of

 a firm compliance plan are

considered.

Over Ekco Glaco’s objection,

 the Agency moved and the

Hearing Officer

 admitted results of 1987 air quality monitoring

for ozone

 in Illinois

(R.

 149—160,

 Resp.

Ex.

 Nos.

1

 & 2).

The

Board finds that admission proper,

 over

 a hearsay objection,

as

“evidence which

 is material, relevant and would

 be relied upon by

reasonably prudent persons

 in the conduct of serious affairs”.

35

 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204(a), and as business records.

 35 Ill.

Adm.

 Code 103.208.

 The Board

 notes that the same information has

been accepted by the Board

 in several regulatory proceedings.

This evidence is accepted

 for the sole purpose of showing that

during

1987

 the ambient air quality standard

 for ozone has been

violated

 frequently, pervasively, and substantially in

Northeastern Illinois.

Ekco Glaco submits that its VOM emissions will not cause a

significant adverse impact on air quality.

 This argument misses

the point.

 The number of hydrocarbon sources

 in northern

Illinois that contribute

 to the ozone problem

 is large.

 That

number includes every

 type. of hydrocarbon source from the

automobile to Ekco Glaco.

 It would be impossible

 to conclude

84—604

—5—

that any one source “causes

 a significant adverse

 impact.”

Yet

the ambient air quality standards are violated.

 The Board finds

that Ekco Glaco is

 a source of hydrocarbons which,

 to an

unquantified degree, contributes to frequent, pervasive and

substantial violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone

in Northern Illinois.

Additionally, the Board

 finds

 that Ekco Glaco, even at this

late date,

 lacks

 a firm compliance plan.

 Ekco Glaco’s compliance

plan for the new plan line is to cure the existing problems with

the used afterburner, yet the manufacturer

(R.

55)

 and the

current consultant

(R.

 61) disagree on what the problem might

be.

 If the problem is not solved, Ekco Glaco has no alternative

plan.

The compliance plan for

the

 used pan line is even more

uncertain.

 It will either be brought into compliance by use of

emission offsets (Ekco Glaco Brief,

 9/4/87,

 p. 18), or by

relocating the used pan line

to

 a separate facility

 in the

Chicago area (Ekco Glaco Brief,

 9/4/87,

p.

17)

 or by the use of

additional add—on controls

 (R. 81).

 Ekco Glaco cannot provide a

schedule by which these actions will

 be implemented

(R.

 109).

In addition to all of the above compliance plans,

 Ekco Glaco

continues to pursue development of a compliant coating

(R.

 76—77)

which would eliminate the need for add—on controls.

 In addition,

Ekco Glaco is considering seeking site—specific regulatory relief

(Pet.

 Ex. 11,

p.

 l)*.

 In summary,

 Ekco Glaco

 is still unwilling

to commit

 to a compliance plan.

The Board concludes these facts demonstrate

 a lack of

commitment to follow through.

 This conclusion

 is bolstered by

Ekco Glaco’s actions relating to their afterburner.

 Ekco Glaco

has had

 an installed and operational afterburner since late 1986

(R.

 117).

 While that afterburner does not meet the required 90

capture and destruction efficiency,

 it does meet 68.4

(R.

 33).

As of August

7,

 1987, Ekco Glaco had never

 run the afterburner on

an ongoing basis

 for pollution control, but only a few times

for

tests

 (R. 118).

 In effect, Ekco Glaco let a perfectly functional

afterburner

 (which would have substantially reduced hydrocarbon

emissions during

 a summer of significant ozone violation)

sit

idle,

 simply because

 it did not lead to full and total compliance

with the law.

In 1983,

 the facility’s emissions were approximately 60

 tons/year of hydrocarbons, and none of the emissions were

controlled

 (Glaco, p.

2).

 Today, four years after compliance was

~ The

 intention to file

 a future site—specific regulatory

proposal

 is not an acceptable compliance plan (City of Mendota v.

PCIB,

No.

 3—86—0549, Third District, Slip Op.

 10/1/87 and Schrock,

PCB

 86—205

 (1987).

84—605

—6—

required,

 the emissions are 77.5 tons/year

 (Pet., par.

 14),

and

existing pollution control equipment is simply not turned on.

In summary,

 the Board

 finds that Ekco Glaco has not been

diligently

pursuing

compliance

reductions

emissions

hydrocarbons.

The

Board

finds

that

any

hardship

complying

with the 1983 regulations

 is largely self—imposed,

 in that it

results

from

prior

business

decisions.

 The Board also finds that

any hardship which arguably may exist is not arbitrary or

unreasonable when viewed against four years of delay and Ekco

Glaco’s

contribution

frequent,

pervasive

and

severe

violations

of

 the ambient air quality standards for ozone

 in Northern

Illinois.

 Consequently, the Board will deny Ekco Glaco’s request

for

variance.

Because the Board has denied Ekco Glaco’s request for

variance

the

merits,

need

not

address

the

federal

law

question.

 The Agency asserts that Section 172 of the Clean Air

Air

 (42 U.S.C.

 7401,

 et seq.) and Section 35

 of the Environmental

Protection Act preclude granting PACT variances beyond December

31,

 1987.

 Ekco Glaco argues forcefully that the law does allow

such

variances.

incorrect

decision

that

question

may

lead

to significant adverse economic consequences for the State of

Illinois under

 the sanction provisions of the Clean Air Act.

The

Board specifically does not reach that difficult question today.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact and

conclusion

 of law in this matter.

01WER

Ekco Glaco Corporation’s April

1,

 1987, Petition for

Variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204 and 215.205(j)

 is denied.

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

Illinois

establish

filing

requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Chairman

J.D.

Dumelle

and

Board

Member

Theodore

Meyer

dissented

and

Board

Member

Flemal

concurred.

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certi~y

that

the

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

the

/7~’

day

1987,

vote

4~2-

HyMGunn,Cl~~

Illinois

 Pollution Control Board

84—606