ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
5, 1987
TRILLA STEEL DRUM CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
PCB 86—9
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONI4ENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent~
MR. RICHARD W.
COSBY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
MR.~WILLIAM INGERSOLL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT..
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by ~3.Marlin):
This matter comes before
the Board
on a Petition
for
Variance filed by Trilla Steel Drum Corporation
(Trilla)
on
January 16,
1986..
Specifically, Trilla
is seeking variance
from
35 Iii.
Adm.. Code 215.212,
Compliance Plan, 215.211, Compliance
Dates
and Geographical Areas, and 215.204(j), Emission
Limitations for Manufacturing Plants, Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Coating.
These regulations concern volatile organic
material
emissions.
Trilla
is requesting
that the variance be
granted until L~ecember31,
1987.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency)
filed
an Agency Recommendation (Ag.
Rec.)
on March 24,
1986..
In its recommendation,
the Agency
requested that the Board deny Trilla’s variance request.
A
hearing
in this matter was held
in Chicago,
Illinois on October
27,
1986;
no members of the public were present.
Trilla filed
its post—hearing brief
(Pet.
Brief)
and
reply brief
(Pet.
Reply)
on December
8,
1986 and January
2,
1987 respectively.
The Agency
filed
its post—hearing brief
(Ag.. Brief)
on December
24,
1986.
Trilla owns and operates
a facility which manufactures
55
gallon steel
industrial
shipping containers.
The plant, located
at
2959 West 47th Street
in Chicago, employs approximately 50
people.
(Pet.
p. 1,4).
Trilla emits volatile organic compounds
(VOC)
from its coating
operations..
The shipping containers,
or
drums,
are coated
on the exterior as well as the interior.
The
drums
are made to the order
of Trilla’s customers.
Consequently,
the customers specify the type and color of coating
to be used.
(Pet.
p.
21).
Under
the emission limitations of
35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 215.204(j), the interior coating used by Trilla
should not
exceed the emission of 4.3 pounds of volatile organic material
per gallon of coating.
The same subsection also provides that
the exterior coating
should
not emit more
than 3.5 pounds
of
volatile organic material
per gallon of coating applied.
75.206
2
Trilla’s interior coating lines consist of four spray paint
booths
and one curing
oven.
The exterior line has one spray
booth and one curing oven.
(R.
89).
Data concerning
the amount
of coating used by Trilla, the average VOC content of the
coating, and
the calculated amount of VOC emitted from the
coating
is as follows:
11/1/81
11/1/82
11/1/83
11/1/84
to
to
to
to
10/31/82
10/31/83
10/31/84
10/31/8
Interior Line
Total Coating
Used
(gal)
14,876
15,368
20,957
15,70E
Avg. VOC content of
Coating
(lb/gal)
5.24
5.24
5.24
5.2~
Total VOC Emissions
from Coating
(tons)
38.9
40.2
54.9
41.1
Exterior Line
Total Coating Used
(gal)
33,352
31,486
30,896
28,17~
Avg. VOC Content of
Coating
(lb/gal)
4.33
4.33
4.33
4.3:
Total
VOC
Emissions
from Coating
(tons)
72.3
68,2
69.9
61.0
(Pet.
p.
4—6)
In 1983,
Trilla made improvements
to both its interior and
exterior coating
lines
in an effort to increase
the transfer
efficiency of the coating application process..
An increase
in
transfer efficiency would mean that Trilla could reduce
the
amount of coating used per drum.
(Pet.
p.
6).
Improvements
common
to both coating lines include:
1..
The installation of new paint spraying
tips which allow
for more precise
spraying reduces overspray.
2.
The installation of pressure regulators which allow for
a reduction of pressure
in the paint lines reduces
overspray and bounce back of the coating..
3.
Increased drum rotation speed
as
the drums pass through
the spray paint booth reduces overspray.
4.
The installation of large agitators
in the paint
storage
barrels reduces the need for solvents
to break up the
build
up of solids in the storage
barrels..
75-207
3
On the
interior coating line, Trilla has installed an
electrostatic spraying system for applying coating
to the
interior of the detached heads and bottom of a drum.
The
electrostatic spray system is highly efficient due
to the lack of
overspray and bounce back.
Trilla states that the technology of
this system does not lend itself to be used on either the
interior of the body of the drum or
the exterior of the drum.
With regard
to exterior coating
line,
Trilla has made
improvements
to its drum washing procedures
so that the drum’s
surface
is better prepared
to receive the coating.
This improved
surface preparation allows
for the use of higher solids coatings
and a thinner application of the coating.
Trilla asserts that
the above improvements have increased coating transfer efficiency
such that in 1984, 23.31
drums could be coated with one gallon of
exterior
coating..
Trilla’s figures indicate that
in
1982, prior
to the
improvements, it could only coat 18.43 drums per gallon of
exterior coating.
(R.
91; Pet. p. 6—9).
During
the 1970’s, Trilla modified its curing ovens
in an
effort
to save on fuel costs.
The intent behind
the
modifications was
to minimize the amount of fresh air entering
the oven and utilize the hot air, containing combustibles,
to
generate more heat.
CR.
124—25).
The drums
enter
and exit one
side of the oven,
so the opening on
the turn—around
end
of
the
oven was closed
to help keep the oven’s hot air
from escaping.
(R..
127)..
In addition, two of three
stacks from each oven were
closed off.
Hot air
from the oven
is now drawn through ducts
into the fire box, located
on top of the oven.
The air passes
over the gas burners
in the firebox and
is then recirculated back
into the oven.
A certain amount of fresh air
is still allowed
to
enter the oven system.
It is Trilla’s position that
a
significant percentage
of the VOC’s contained
in the hot air,
ducted from the oven,
are combusted by this recirculation
process..
CR..
112,
115,
129—30,
134).
Trilla retained Clear
Air Engineering,
Inc.
(CAE)
to conduct
stack
tests
in order
to determine the amount of VOC’s emitted by
Trilla during
the coating process.
These stack tests were
conducted on January 16
and 17, 1984.
(Pet.
Exh.
#3).
On August
19, 1986,
CAE also conducted
a study on Trilla’s exterior coating
line
to determine the VOC loss at various points during the
process.
CAE concluded from this study that 49.04
of the VOC
loss from the coating
occurs prior
to when the drum enters the
curing
oven.
(Pet. Exh. #4,
p. 1—1).
Combining
this conclusion
with the results from the stack tests,
Trilla asserts that the
destruction efficiency of the interior coating line cure oven
is
26.8 percent and the destruction efficiency of the exterior
coating line cure oven
is 49 percent.
(Pet.. Brief,
p.
10)..
Trilla claims that
if these destruction efficiency rates are
figured
into the emission data presented by the Agency
in the
Agency Recommendation, one can conclude that
the interior coating
line
is in compliance.
That
is, according
to Trilla,
when the
destruction efficiency rate
is taken
into account, the data shows
that the emissions from
the
interior coating
line are below that
75.208
4
which would
exist if Trilla was applying
a coating with the
proper VOC/gal content and was not employing any VOC controls.
Trilla states that the interior coating line emissions even give
a credit of
2.41 tons of VOC per year which could be applied
to
offset
the exterior coating line emissions.
Hence, Trilla
concludes that
in 1985
it emitted only 2.44
tons in excess of the
VOC limits.
(Pet..
Brief,
p.
11).
The Agency counters that the interior coating
line is not
in
compliance with emission limitations,
The Agency questions the
reliability of Trilla’s conclusions.
Specifically, the Agency
points out that the transfer efficiency test, conducted by CAE on
August
19,
1986
(See Pet..
Exh..
#5) and
the VOC loss test,
referred to above, were conducted on the exterior coating line.
Therefore, according to the Agency, those
results cannot be used
in determining the emissions of the interior coating line.
(Ag.
Brief, p.
2)..
In addition, the Agency asserts that the results
of the stack
tests conducted by CAE
in 1984 are not valid,
because CAE measured emission rates
in carbon per
hour, not
pounds of VOC.
(Ag. Brief,
p.
3).
The Agency concludes that
Trilla has not presented sufficient information to prove that the
modifications on the curing ovens cause
the destruction of VOC’s
(Ag. Brief,
p.
3).
According to
the Agency, Trilla annually
emits more than 40 tons of VOC
in excess of the allowable limit.
(Ag. Rec. p.
6,
11).
Trilla claims that interior coatings which meet
the 4.3
lb
VOC/gal limitation simply do not exist.
(Pet.
p.
21).
As a
consequence, Trilla concentrated its efforts on finding
exterior
coatings with 1a VOC content sufficiently less than the exterior
coating limitation of 3.5 lb VOC/gal
so
as
to offset the internal
coating line exceedance.
From late 1983 through 1985,
Trilla
tested various exterior coatings supplied
by
5 different firms.
All of these test coatings proved unsatisfactory and unuseable.
The primary problems with the experimental coatings included
failure
to
cover
the
surface
properly,
failure
to
dry
properly
——
leaving
a
tacky
finish,
uneven drying,
and
the emission of odors.
(R.
101;
Pet.,
p.
11—16).
Compliance
Plan
Trilla
asserts
that
its
interior
coating
line
is
in
compliance,
so
Trilla
concludes
that
it
will
no
longer
need
to
find
an
exterior
coating
with
a
sufficiently
low
VOC/gal
content
to offset the interior coating
line.
Consequently, Trilla claims
that it will fare better
in
a search for
an exterior coating due
to the
fact that the coating VOC/gal content need not be as low
as previously thought..
Trilla proposes
to seek an exterior
coating with a VOC content of
3..3
to 3.5 pounds per gallon.
(Pet.
Brief,
p..
16).
The Agency states that since Trilla has been unsuccessful
in
years past
in trying
to
find exterior coatings which will bring
it into compliance,
it
is unlikely that Trilla will discover
such
75.209
5
coatings before December
31,
1987..
(Ag. Brief,
p.
5).
The Agency
notes that Chicago, as
a nonattainment area, must achieve
compliance
with
RACT
regulations
by
that
date
pursuant
to
Section
172
of the Clear Air Act.
The Agency believes that the plan
proposed by Trilla
is
inadequate
to achieve such compliance.
(Ag.
Brief,
p..
4).
Trilla asserts that there are no compliance alternatives
other than the proposed plan, which are both technically feasible
and economically reasonable.
Control alternatives such as carbon
absorption,
electrostatic
spraying
(other
than
Trilla’s
present
limited
use),
and powder coatings are not technically feasible
according to Trilla.
While stack incineration
is technically
feasible, Trilla claims that
the
cost of such afterburner systems
is economically unreasonable.
(Pet.
p.
20).
It is Trilla’s
position that if
it were required
to install and operate
a
thermal afterburner, Trilla would suffer
an end of year loss of
$75,000..
(R..
15).
If
a catalytic afterburner with heat recovery
was utilized, Trilla’s annualized loss would
be calculated at
$20,000
(R..
21).
Also, Trilla
states that due
to
the
tight
market conditions of the steel container industry,
it would lose
its market share
if
it raised
its prices to pay for
an
afterburner
system.
In
fact,
Trilla notes that its unit price
has dropped
in the past three years
to
a point where Trilla
is
now charging prices that are approximately the same as
it charged
ten years ago.
(R..
75).
Environmental Harm
Trilla states that the
two ozone monitoring stations closest
to Trilla have shown
a downward trend
in the number of days
during
the year
in which the ozone air quality standard was
exceeded.
It also claims that Trilla contributes an “extremely
small percentage”
of the
total hydrocarbon emissions
of Chicago
when considering the destruction efficiency of its curing
ovens.
Consequently, Trilla concludes that its emissions would
not interfere with Chicago’s progress
in attaining ambient air
quality standards.
(Pet.
Brief,
p.
19,
20).
It
is the Agency’s position that Trilla cannot properly
claim
a destruction efficiency from
its curing
ovens..
(Ag. Brief,
p.
3).
Therefore,
the
Agency figures Trilla’s
excess emissions
to
be
ten
times greater
than what Trilla calculates.
(Pet.. Brief,
p..
19).
The
Agency
concludes that Trilla,
like
all other
regulated
sources
in
Chicago,
should
be
expected
to
comply
with
limitations
so that Chicago may achieve attainment..
According
to
the Agency, Trilla has not adequately shown that its excess
emissions are “inconsequential”.
(Ag.
Brief,
p.
4).
Findings
The Board
notes that Trilla has not been
in compliance with
the coating limitations
of
35
Ill..
Adm.
Code 215.204(j)
since
the
regulations became effective on December
31,
1983.
Trilla’s last
75.210
6
coating line permit expired on December
31,
1983.
Trilla has
been operating without
a permit since that
date..
(Ag. Brief,
p.
9).
Trilla has made a significant effort
to increase the
transfer efficiency of its coating lines;
Trilla claims that it
is now using
less coating for each drum.
The transfer efficiency
improvements were made in 1983.
Data supplied by Trilla
indicates that Trilla used approximately nine percent less
coating during the period from November
1, 1984
to October 31,
1985 than was used during
the period
of November
1,
1981 to
October
31, 1982.
There
is no evidence
to show that this nine
percent decline
is solely attributable to improved
transfer
efficiency.
However,
even assuming that
is the case,
the
transfer efficiency improvements have not had a great impact upon
the amount of coating used by Trilla.
This
is important
to note
because the amount of coating used by Trilla
is directly
proportional
to the amount of VOC’s emitted by the facility.
Trilla claims that modification to its curing ovens have
resulted
in the control
of VOC’s emitted from the drums while
in
the ovens.
Trilla claims that the
interior and exterior line
curing
ovens have
a destruction efficiency of 49
and 26.8 percent
respectively.
The Agency,
along with the Board, questions this
conclusion..
There
is not enough evidence
in the record
to
convince the
Board
that the modified curing ovens are acting
as
control technologies having
the destruction efficiencies as
asserted by Trilla..
Trilla calculated
the destruction
efficiencies
in part
from data of stack
tests.
These stack
tests
were conducted
for only two days
in 1984, without Agency
personnel present..
Results from a VOC loss test were also used
by Trilla
in calculating
the destruction efficiencies.
The VOC
loss test was performed on only one exterior coating for one day
in 1986.
In addition, no data was presented
concerning
the
temperature within the firebox, the place where
the VOC’s are
allegedly destroyed.
The modifications on
the curing ovens were
designed
for
the purpose of fuel conservation not VOC
destruction..
These modifications were implemented
in the 1970’s
years before the present coating limitations became
effective..
Trilla has not presented enough information
to show that the
ovens
are effective
in destroying VOC’s.
However, this determination does not preclude Trilla from
conducting further tests
in order
to show that the curing
ovens
provide
a control efficiency such that Trilla
is
in compliance
with
VOC
emission
limitations.
Such
tests,
including
stack
tests, should utilize methods and procedures
in consultation with
the Agency.
In addition, Agency monitoring of the testing would
serve
to lessen any controversy that may exist concerning
the
tests’
results and conclusions.
Since
the
Board cannot rely upon Trilla’s assertion that the
curing ovens control VOC’s,
the Board must conclude that Trilla
emits
all the VOC’s contained in the coating
it applies.
In
other words,
VOC emissions can be calculated by simply
multiplying
the
amount of coating applied by the VOC content of
75-211
7
the coating.
Such data, presented earlier
in this opinion, shows
that Trilla emitted 102.1
tons of VOC
for the period from
November
1,
1984
to October
31,
1985.
The Agency states that
this amounts
to an excess of
40 tons over the allowable amount of
emissions.
Such an amount cannot be ignored when considering
the
nonattainment status of areas of
Illinois.
Under
the Clean Air Act, Illinois’ nonattainment areas must
achieve attainment by December
31, 1987.
Trilla’s compliance
plan consists solely of
the further
testing
of coatings with
sufficiently low VOC content.
For over two years, Trilla has
unsuccessfully attempted
to find low VOC coatings which
it could
utilize.
It is unlikely,
that this compliance method
alone will
result in Trilla’s achieving compliance by the end of the
year..
Trilla claims that it will likely find an exterior coating with
sufficient VOC content because
it no longer needs to offset the
interior coating
line.
Trilla reaches this conclusion
since
it
believes that the
interior coating
line
is in compliance due the
destruction efficiency of
the interior curing
oven..
However, the
Board cannot conclude from the record that the
interior coating
line is
in compliance.
Therefore,
if Trilla
is left
to come into
compliance by merely finding low VOC content coatings,
it would
have to discover
an interior coating with a sufficiently low VOC
content to offset
the
interior coating
line exceedance.
Such
a
search by Trilla has previously been fruitless.
Given
the circumstances,
the Board
finds that
if this
variance was denied, thereby requiring Trilla
to come into
immediate compliance, Trilla would suffer
an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship.
However, the proposed compliance plan is
inadequate
to ensure that Trilla will achieve compliance by
December
31,
1987..
The Board has previously addressed the issue
of VOC emissions from steel drum coating operations.
In Van Leer
Containers,
Inc..
v.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB
85—227
(January
8, 1987)
as well as Nesco Steel Barrel Company
v..
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
PCB 84—81
(January 22,
1987),
the Board granted variances for the coating line
operations..
However,
in both instances the Board gave the firms
only a limited amount of time, during each variance,
to
investigate
the possibility of utilizing low VOC content coatings
or other methods
for achieving compliance..
The conditions on the
variances
further provided that if such methods did not appear
to
be successful during the allotted
time, then
an afterburner
system would have
to be installed and ready to operate prior
to
the expiration date of the variance.
The Board
finds that a
similar
form of relief
is appropriate
for Trilla.
The Board will grant Trilla
a variance from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
215.204(j),
215.211 and 215.212 until
December
31,
1987..
However, this variance
is subject
to various conditions..
First,
Trilla must immediately begin
an engineering study for add—on
control equipment.
This will enable quick implementation of such
equipment if found
to be needed later
in
the variance period.
Trilla may continue its search
for compliant coatings.
However,
75-212
8
by July 1,
1987,
Trilla should begin
the installation of add—on
control equipment unless it determines, with reasonable
certainty,
that such controls are unnecessary in order
to achieve
compliance by December
31, 1987.
The Agency shall be immediately
notified
of any such determination made by Trilla..
If Trilla
determines that it must utilize add—on controls
in order
to
achieve
compliance,
these
controls
should
be
installed
and
operational
by
December
31,
1987.
This
scheduled
compliance
plan
will
allow
Trilla
to
continue
its
pursuit
of
low
VOC
coatings
for
five
more
months,
yet
it
will
also
require
that
Trilla
achieves
compliance by
the
Clean
Air
Act
deadline.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter..
ORDER
Trilla
Steel Drum Corporation
(Trilla)
is hereby granted
variance from 35
Ill..
Adm.. Code 215.204(j), 215.211,
and 2l5..2l2
until December
31,
1987,
subject
to the following conditions:
1.
Trilla shall immediately commence
an engineering project
study
for add—on control equipment..
2.
By July 1,
1987, Trilla shall commence the installation
of add—on control equipment unelss
it determines, with
reasonable certainty, that such controls are unnecessary
in order
to achieve compliance with 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
215.204(j)
by December
31,
1987.
Should Trilla
determine that the installation of add—on controls is
necessary
to achieve compliance, such controls shall be
installed and operational by December
31,
1987.
The
Agency shall
be immediately notified of any determination
made by Trilla..
3..
By March
5,
1987 and every month thereafter, Trilla
shall submit
to the Agency written reports detailing all
progress made
in achieving compliance with Section
215..204(j)..
Said reports shall include
information
compiled on
a monthly basis on coating materials usage;
amount
of
reformulated
coating
in
use;
actual
and
allowable
VOM
emissions;
the
quantity
of
VOM
reductions
during
the
reporting
period;
and
actual
operating
hours..
Such reports shall
also describe
in detail
the
progress made during the reporting period
in the
implementation of the elements of its compliance
program;
shall describe
in detail the progress made by
Trilla
in developing
and testing reformulated interior
coatings, including product quality and customer
acceptance;
and shall
include any other, information
which may be requested by the Agency.
The reports shall
be sent
to the following addresses:
75.213
9
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Programs Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Region
1,
Field
Operations
Section
1701 South
First Avenue
Suite
600
Maywood, Illinois 60153
4.
Trilla
shall timely apply to the Agency for all the
necessary permits consistent with this Order.
5.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Trilla shall
execute
a
Certification
of
Acceptance
and
Agreement
to
be bound to all terms
and conditions of the variance.
Said Certification shall
be
submitted to both the Agency
at the addresses specified
in Condition 3,
above.
The
45—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
____________________________________ (Petitioner), hereby
accepts and agrees
to be bound by all terms and
conditions of the Order
of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 86—9, dated February
5,
1987..
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
J.D..
Duinelle concurred.
B.
Forcade dissented.
75.214
10
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
ó~-
day of
~
,
1987,
by
a
vote
of
_____________________.
4
~2
~
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
75.215
