ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 22,

1986

S

&

C ELECTRIC COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 85—17

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Respondent..

MR. DONALD W.

RUPERT, KIRKLAND AND ELLIS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

S

&

C ELECTRIC COMPANY;

MR. JOSEPH

R. PODLEWSKI, ATTORNEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

D.

Dumelle):

This matter

comes before

the Board upon

a January 31, 1985,

petition

for variance filed

on behalf

of the

S

& C Electric

Company

(S

&

C)

requesting variance from 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

2l5.204(j)(3) and 215.205.

In response

to

a February 7, 1985,

order

for more information

S

& C filed an amended petition on

February 14, 1985.

5

& C filed

a second amended petition for

variance on July 1,

1986.

The Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency) filed

its recommendation that variance

be granted

subject

to certain conditions

on August

21,

1985,

to which

S

& C

responded on October

15,

1985.

Hearing was held on February 11,

1986.

S

&

C,

located

at 6601 N, Ridge

Blvd.

in Chicago,

manufactures and sells high voltage protective equipment.

As

part of

its process

it operates two coating lines

for

the purpose

of applying extreme performance coatings

to metal housings for

fuses and switches;

both consist of

a manually operated spray

painting booth,

bake oven and afterburner.

They are designated

as Booth

1 and Booth

2.

(Pet.

at

2).

In both booths parts which

are

to be coated are conveyed

to the painting area on overhead

conveyor

lines where paint

is delivered

to the part from spray

applicators.

Paint overspray

is directed downward by

a down-

draft exhaust system through floor grates and collected

in

a

water wash.

~

In Booth

1,

a zinc—rich corrosion primer

is first applied

to

the part

to be painted.

After

a short air drying period,

an

intermediate primer

is applied and allowed

to air dry.

Finally,

a

top coat

is applied

arid

the part

is conveyed

to

a bake oven for

70-5

---

—2—

final drying.

In Booth

2,

after

the corrosion primer

and

intermediate primer

are applied,

the part

is conveyed

to

a bake

oven where

the primers are dried.

Following drying,

the parts

return

to the painting area and the top coat is applied.

The top

coat

is

then dried

in the bake oven.

(Pet.

at 4).

Air

from the

two baking ovens

is drawn by exhaust fans

to afterburners which

combust the air

at temperatures approaching

1250

F.

(Pet.

at

4).

Air from the afterburners

is vented

to the atmosphere.

There

are,

three compliance mechanisms available to S

&

C.

The first

is

to meet

the limitation of

35 Ill. Adm. Code

2l5.204(j)(3) of 3.5 pounds per gallon

of volatile organic

material

(VOM) delivered

to the coating applicator.

The second

is

to comply with the alternative emission limitation

of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 215.205,

and the third

is

to qualify for

an exemption

from the emission limitations

of Sections 2l5.204(j)(3) and

215.205 pursuant

to Section 215.206.

S

&

C

states that

it does not presently meet

the 3.5 lbs/gal

limitation

of Section 2l5.204(j)(3)

in that its coatings contain

an average of 4.42 lbs/gal.

(Pet,

at 8).

Furthermore,

S

& C

included

the affidavit of Walter Roberts,

a chemist employed by

S

& C who has the responsibility for reviewing coating

specifications,

examining proposed coating material,

and

performing research and development

on existing and new coating

materials,

as Exhibit

5

to the variance petition,

to establish

that “extreme performance coatings having VOC levels

of 3.5 lbs.

per gallon or less which

could be used

by

S

& C are not

commercially available today and

...

it does not appear that

such

coatings will

be available

in the foreseeable future.”

He bases

this

on his experience and

the fact that he has

investigated

about

35 coatings in the last

4

1/2 years,

none of which has been

found

to be satisfactory.

The Agency does not disagree with

these statements.

Therefore,

S

& C apparently cannot comply with

Section 2l5.204(j)(3).

S

& C does,

however, contend that the 3.5

lbs/gal VOM limitation of Section 215.204(j)(3) “assumes that

coating

suppliers actually manufacture and sell

a coating meeting

the

VOC

requirement and further assumes

that any such coating

would provide acceptable performance characteristics.”

S

& C

argues that since

that

is not the case,

the rule should not be

held applicable

to

it.

The Board does not agree. When it adopted

the RACT rules

(including Section 2l5.204(j)(3)),

the Board realized that those

rules were technology—forcing.

To now hold

these rules

to be

inapplicable simply because there

are no acceptable compliance

coatings at present would be

to counteract this technology—

forcing aspect.

A variance,

however,

is an appropriate mechanism

for relief from that provision.

In order

to demonstrate compliance with Section 215.205(a)

S

& C may demonstrate

that it has an afterburner which oxidizes

70.6

---

—3—

75 percent of

the emissions from the coating

line and

90 percent

of

the nonmethane VOM which enters the afterburner

to carbon

dioxide or water.

Alternatively,

compliance with 215.205(b)

can

be demonstrated by showing that some other

system

is

in place

which

has

a control efficiency equivalent

to or greater than that

provided by Section 2l5..204(j)(3).

Based

upon an hourly usage

of 4.5 gallons

of paint,

S

& C

estimated that

in

1983,

the last full year for which such data

was available,

its uncontrolled VOM emissions attributable to its

painting

operations were 79,560

lbs or 38.78

tons.

(Pet.

at

8).

Of these emissions 0.46 lbs/gal of VOM are destroyed

by the

afterburners.

(Pet.

at

8).

Thus,

the afterburners destroy only

slightly more than 10

of

the total uncontrolled emissions,

far

less

than the 75

required by Section 215.205(a).

If the emission

reduction of

the afterburners

is combined

with the emission reduction attributable

to the water wash

in

order

to establish

a system equivalent

to Section 215.204(j)(3)

pursuant

to Section 215.205(b),

based upon

a water wash capture

of 0.64 lbs/gal

of VOM,

S

& C states that

in 1983 19,854

lbs.

of

VOM were controlled.

Consequently,

S

& C’s actual emissions

for

1983 were

59,706

lbs

or

29.83

tons.

(Pet.

at

9).

In order

to

determine whether this level

of reduction

is equivalent,

it must

be compared

to the allowable emission pursuant

to Section

215204(j)(3).

Assuming

a solvent density of 7.3 lbs/gal,

S

& C’s allowable 1983 VOM emissions,

based upon

an hourly usage

of 4.5 gallons

(18,000 gallons

a year), were 47,745

Ibs,

or

23.87

tons.

Consequently,

in 1983

S

& C’s actual VOM emissions of

29.83 tons exceeded the allowable of 2387

tons by

5.96 tons.

(Rec.

at 4).*

Therefore,

compliance with Section 215.205(b) has

not been demonstrated.

S

&

C argues that

the

6

ton per year exceedance

is

essentially de minimus.

It alleges that its exceedance

constitutes only 0.05

of

the total

reported emissions

in Cook

County and that “to require

S

& C

to expend substantial amounts

of money to decrease by

an imperceptible level

its VOC

VOM

emissions would

be arbitrary and unreasonable.”

(Pet.

at 18).

The Board does not agree

that

a

6

ton per year exceedance

is de

*

The emission figures presented

by the Agency and

S

& C

differ slightly, apparently due

to somewhat different assumptions

and minor errors

in conversion.

However,

the differences are

minor

and for purposes of discussion,

the Board will simply round

the figures

to

30 tons/yr actual emissions and

24 tons/yr

allowable.

Further,

S

& C states

that it does not agree with the

Agency’s method

of calculating allowable emissions.

(Pet.

at

14).

S

&

C does not, however, present alternative calculations

or support

for any other method

of calculation.

Therefore,

the

Board will accept these figures.

70-7

---

—4—

minimus,

especially when compared

to

the total emissions

of less

than

30

tons per year, which

is approximately 20

of

S

& C’s

total emissions.

The third compliance mechanism is

to demonstrate

qualification for

an exemption pursuant

to Section 215.206.

The

only applicable provision, subsection

(a), exempts coating plants

whose VOM emissions are less than 25

tons per year.

Since

S

& C

emits nearly 30 tons per year,

it does not qualify for

this

exemption.

Immediate compliance

is, therefore,

impossible

short of

curtailment of manufacture.

Further,

S

& C indicated that

compliance coatings are unlikely

in the foreseeable

future.

The

installation of new control equipment capable

of removing

additional amounts of VOM, principally from the spray booths,

would

cost about $2,500,000

to $5,000,000 per year for

operation.

Using

the lower,

and hence more conservative, number

and assuming

a ten—year lifetime, the annualized cost for

acquiring and operating such equipment would

be about $750,000,

which would

be incurred solely

to remove

6 tons of VOM.

In other

words,

based upon Mr. Roberts’ estimates,

full compliance with

Section 214.205 would require the annual

additional expenditure

of about $125,000 per ton

of VON removed.

This cost must be balanced against the environmental harm

which may be caused

by the granting

of variance

in order

to

determine whether

an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship exists.

S

& C

is located

in Chicago which

is

a nonattainment area for

ozone

for which

the ambient air quality standard

is 0.12 ppm.

In

both 1983 and 1984

the closest ozone monitor,

located

8 miles

south

of the plant,

recorded

a single exceedance of that

standard.

(Rec.

p.

12).

The Agency admits that

“it

is difficult

to determine

S

& C’s contribution to those exceedances in light

of

the effect of other

sources,

including motor

vehicle

emissions.”

(Pet~. at 12).

The Agency concludes, however,

and

the

Board agrees,

that given

S

& C’s “relatively small

contribution

to overall organic materials emissions

in Cook

County,

...

there will be

no significant

adverse air quality

impact associated with the granting of the variance.”

The Board,

therefore,

finds

that S

&

C has established

that

the denial

of variance would result

in an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship upon

it due to the high cost of control and

the lack of significant adverse environmental impact.

Consequently,

the Board will grant the variance from Section

215.204(j)(3) subject

to conditions.

The Board will not,

however, grant variance from Section 215.205 since such relief

is

unnecessary.

Section 215.205 simply allows an alternative

mechanism for demonstrating compliance which

is

of

no concern

once variance from Section 215.204(j)(3)

is obtained.

70.8

---

—5--

Variance will be granted only until December 31,

1987.

In

accordance with the provisions of Section

35 of

the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act,

the Board can only grant variance

to the extent that

it

is consistent with the provisions

of the

Clean Air Act.

Because Section 215.204(j) has not yet been

approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

as part of

the State Implementation Plan

(SIP),

the

Agency does not believe that the variance requested,

if granted,

would have

to be submitted to the USEPA as

a SIP revision.

The

Agency has, however, reviewed the petitions for variance, the

applicable air quality standards,

the most recent Illinois Air

Quality Report and all other information which would normally be

necessary to obtain approval

of

a revision to the SIP by USEPA.

In addition,

the Agency has discussed the approvability of

variances containing

a post—1987 compliance date

as revisions

of

the Illinois SIP with USEPA.

Because

of the status

of Cook

County

as

a nonattainment area

for

ozone,

it appears highly

unlikely that,

should the Board’s RACT

II rules be approved,

USEPA will approve any variance allowing compliance to

be delayed

until

after 1987 as

a revision

to the Illinois SIP.

(See Section

172(a)

of

the Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C.

par. 7502(a)).

However,

the Agency believes that

a variance

to December

31,

1987 would be

approvable

as

a SIP revision should

the USEPA approve

the Board’s

PACT

II rules.

S

&

C has

indicated the acceptability

of that

termination date and the Board will grant variance until

then.

(See R.

4, Response

to Agency Rec. dated October

15,

1985 and

Letter

to the Clerk

of the Board

filed March

19,

1986).

In

its Second Amended Petition for Variance,

S

& C

indicates

that

it intends

to achieve compliance

by the end

of 1989.

However,

S

&

C apparently believes that its compliance schedule

can be compressed

to meet

a December

31, 1987, deadline.

Presumably,

the same actions will

be taken

as proposed in the

Second Amended Petition.

These

include replacing Booth

2 with

a

new coating system consisting

of an epoxy powder primer

and

a

high transfer efficiency topcoat, eliminating topcoat paint on

all internal switchgear parts and redesigning cabinets now

painted

in Booth

1 such

that they can be painted with epoxy

powder

coating.

(Second Amended Pet.

at 4).

S

&

C estimates

that these

changes will achieve

an overall VON emission reduction

of

60

without utilization

of any control equipment.

As

a

result, VOM emissions at the end

of the variance period

will be

below

25 tons per year and,

therefore, will be exempt pursuant

to

Section 215.206.

The previously submitted compliance schedule, which must now

be revised,

is

as follows:

70.9

---

—6--

Beginning

Completion

Activity

6/01/85

6/01/86

Engineering studies of the

new powder coating system

and building

6/30/85

6/30/86

Architectural design of

building

7/01/85

11/30/87

Building construction

12/01/87

9/30/88

Rearrangement

of plant

process area

to make room

for powder coating

line

12/01/87

Purchase orders

for powder

coating line to

be let

10/01/88

4/30/89

Installation

of new powder

coating line

5/01/89

9/30/89

Shake down

of powder

coating line equipment

10/01/89

12/31/89

Operation compliance

and

verification studies

S

&

C’s schedule for redesigning parts

so as

to be

compatible

to its proposed powder coating system, which must also

be revised,

is

as follows.

Beginning

Completion

Activity

1/01/85

7/31/85

Design studies

8/01/85

12/31/85

Mock

up of new cabinet

units

1/01/86

7/31/86

Redesign and modification

of new cabinets

8/01/86

11/30/87

Final

design and

manufacturing

12/01/87

7/31/88

Tooling,

equipment

manufacturing outline

for

resigned cabinets

70.10

---

—7-.

Beginning

Completion

Activity

1/01/89

9/30/89

Modification based

on

pilot run

10/01/89

12/31/89

Begin production

Other variance conditions,

also agreed

to

by

S

&

C,

include

a limit on emissions during

the variance period and the continued

use

of existing control systems.

This Opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings

of fact and

conclusions

of law in this matter.

ORDER

S

& C Electric Company

is hereby granted variance from 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 215.204(j)(3) until December

31,

1987, subject

to

the following conditions:

1.

Within

30 days of

the date of

this Order

S

& C shall

submit

to the Agency revised compliance schedules

for

installing

a powder coating system and

redesigning

certain parts

to be compatible with that system by

December

31, 1987.

5

&

C shall also submit progress

reports

to the Agency which reasonably informs

it

of

the progress

S

&

C

is making

in achieving compliance

by

the end of the variance period.

The first progress

report shall

be due 180 days from the date

of this

Order and

a report

shall be due every six months

thereafter

to the end

of the variance period.

2.

During

the term of the variance S

&

C shall continue

to

control VOM emissions from

its coating

lines through

the water wash sludge/afterburner control system so

as

to minimize VOM emissions

to

the atmosphere.

3.

5

& C’s annual

total coating usage shall

not exceed

25,000 gallons during

the term of

the variance, and

S

&

C shall not utilize coatings with

a greater VOC

content than the coatings currently

in use.

4.

Prior to construction of

its powder coating system,

S

&

C shall

submit

to the Agency

an application

for

a

construction permit

in accordance with

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 201.142.

S

&

C shall not operate

that system

without first obtaining an Agency operating permit in

accordance with

35 Ill.

Adm. Code

201.143.

70-11

---

—8—

5.

Within forty—five

(45) days after

the date

of this

Order,

S

&

C shall execute and send

to:

Mr. Joseph

R. Podlewski,

Jr.

Enforcement Attorney

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1701

S. First Avenue— Suite 600

Maywood,

IL 60153

a certification

of acceptance

of

this variance by which

it agrees

to be bound by its terms

and conditions.

This forty—five

(45) day period

shall

be held

in

abeyance for any period which this matter

is

appealed.

The form of

the certification shall

be

as

follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We)

S

& C Electric

,

hereby accept and agree

to

be bound

by all terms

and conditions of the Order

of the Pollution Control

Board

in PCB 85—17, May

22,

1986.

Petit

BY:

ioner

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gum, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on

the

~

day of

~

,

1986,

by

a vote

of

7-~

.

Dorothy N.

~unn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

70.12