I
Lid
NOl S
POLLU TI ON
CONTROL
BOARD
June
29,
1984
MEYER STEEL
DRUM, INC.,
(Kilhourn
Street
p:Lant),
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB
84—28
I
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J. Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
variance of Meyer Steel Drum,
Inc.
(Meyer)
filed on March
1,
1984.
The Petitioner has requested a variance until December 31,
1985 from the volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission
limitations
delineated
in
Rule 104(h)(1)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control
Regulations
(now
35 Il.~
Adm.
Code 215, Appendix C),
Rule 205(i)(1)
of Chapter
2
(now
35 I1l~Mm. Code 215.211), and Rule 205(n)(l)(J)
of Chapter
2
(now
35
Iii, Mm. Code 215,204(j)).
On March
8,
1984,
the Board entered an Order which noted
that more information on ozone ambient air quality end on the
level of VOC emissions was necessarv~
On April 10,
1984, the Petitioner
filed an Amended Variance
Petition which provided the requested additional information
arid
filed a motion -for expedited hearing and consideration of its
variance
.
Or: May
25,
1984,
a hearing was held and the Illinois Environ~
nmntal Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation that
variance be granted subject to certain conditions.
The Petitioner owns
arid
operates
a container manufacturing
plant
which produces new steel drums which are used for the
~hipment of flammable liquid, paints,
adhesives,
oils,
foods and
other products.
(Pet,
2),
The company
is
in the process of
relocating its
drum
manufacturing operations
from
5303
S.
Keeler
;~venue
in
Chicago,
Cook
County,
Illinois
to
a
new
location
in
an
industrial
and
commercial
area
at
2000
S.
K:Llbourn
Avenue
in
Chicago.
(Pet.
4).
This
relocation
is
pursuant
to
an
agreed
order
of
the
Circuit Court of Cook County which required termina-
tion
of
all
painting
operations
at
the
Keeler
Avenue
plant
by
May
30,
1984.
(Rec,
2~ Pet.
4)..
The
new
Kilbourn
Avenue
facility
is
expected
to
employ
about
40
people
and
will
have
a
plant
area
oi~
about
60,000
square
feet
including
office
space.
(Pet.
4),
58-473
The manufacture of both open~heador tight~head55
gallon
new steel drums at the Petitioner~sKi:tbourn Avenue plant
will
involve the following operations:
(1)
steel sheets
(which are
precut for
55 barrel drums) are roiled into a cylinder shape
and
are then welded, ribbed, and flanged;
(2)
special bottoms which
are stamped from the steel sheet are then installed on the cylin-
ders;
(3)
the drums are pressure tested;
(4) the interior coatings
are
first
sprayed and then cured;
(5) the lids,
which are lined
separately, are then installed;
(6) the exterior is
coated, and
(7) the drums are dried in
a bake oven.
The company has
equipped
the coating spray booths with dry filters or water
wash
systems
to control particulate overspray~.
(Rec.,
2),
The company intends
to
process about
150 to 400 drums per hour at its new Kilbourn
Avenue
facility.
(Pet,
15),
The
Petitioner, which has highly specialized paint requirements
for its
steel drum coating
operations, has requested a variance
from the applicable air pollution rules to allow container production
using
the existing
tested coatings which are presently applied to
the drums by means of spraying,
The company anticipates that it
will
apply about
27,000 gallons of coating materials annually,
including clear coating
(liner) and extreme performance coating,
in the drum manufacturing process during 1984.
(Pet,
4),
Section 215,204(j),
which has an effective date of December
31,
1983, requires
that volatile organic compounds
contained
in
the coatings used
by the company be limited to 3,5 pounds per
gallon
(lb/gal)
for
exterior
(extreme performance)
coating and
4.3 lb/gal
for
interior
(clear)
coating,
(Rec,
2),
At the
Keeler Avenue facility, Meyer applied 2,765 gallons of interior
coatings
in
1983
which had an average VOC content
of 5,05
lb/gal,
According
to
the Agency~scalculations, the resultant
VOC
emissions
in
1983 from interior
coating operations at the Keeler plant were
14,025
pounds per
year
(Ib/yr) or
7 tons per year,
In 1983, Meyer
applied
16,830
gallons of exterior coating at its Keeler Avenue
plant
which had
an average VOC content of 4,55 lb/gal
and
resulted
in VOC emissions,
as estimated by the Agency,
of 76,575 lb/year
or 38,28
tons per
year.
(Rec, 2~~~3)
In its Recommendation,
the Agency has noted that, applying
the usage
figures
during 1983 from the Keeler Avenue facility,
the allowable VOC emission limitation for interior coatings would
he 8,351 lb/yr or 4,17 tons per year,
while the alloable VOC
emission limitation for exterior coatings would be
41,300
lb/yr
or 20.65
tons
per year.
(Rec.
3),
Accordingly, the Petitioneer
will have to reduce emissions from interior coatings
by
40,42
and reduce VOC emissions from exterior coatings by 46,05.
(Rec.
3).
The
Agency
has
indicated that, although the
Petitioner
has
been diligently working both internally and with its coating
suppliers
to
develop
the requisite technology to reduce VOC
58-474
emissions, the efforts to date have been partially
successful but
have not produced great enough reductions to achieve compliance
with Section 215.204(j)
by December 31,
1983,
(Rec.
3).
The
company has considered various alternative methods of compliance
including;
(1) the use of high solids, water~based,
low
solvent
and powder coatings;
(2)
ultra—violet curing;
(3)
electrostatic
paint application techniques;
(4)
fume incineration and the
installation of afterburners; and
(5) carbon adsorption and
condensation techniques.
(Pet,
11-56~., However,
these alter-
native methods were rejected because the resultant product was
unacceptable, maintenance and installation costs
were
prohibi-
tive,
and
the technology was not technically or economically
feasible.
(Rec.
3).
In reference
to its
ongoing
compliance
efforts,
the Petitioner
has stated that
it “is
a
small
privately held
organization..
,does
not have any engineering or research
and development force and is
simply too small
to be
able to
afford such a force...The operations
of the plant are carried out by the
owners...When they have
engineering
problems
or are installing new equipment, they either
call
on outside consulting engineers or vendor
supplied
engineering
or
combinations of both,,.the
Company has depended
on
their
vendors
to
supply them with materials which the
vendors
claim to
be adequate...modifying equipment as necessary by
adding
heaters,
changing paint guns, nozzles, pressures and
temperature
in an
effort to get these materials to perform properly on the drums
and to develop
a successful compliance program,.,”
(Pet. 2~3),
In
fact,
it was brought out at the hearing that the Petitioner
has recently hired a consultant
to work with the company in
constructing, designing, and putting into operation the requisite
spray painting facilities at its new Kilbourn Avenue plant to
continue efforts
to reduce the level of solvent emissions,
(R,
4—5),
While the company
is
in the process of investigating various
alternative methods of compliance to achieve the necessary reduc~
tion in emission levels,
it has proposed to achieve compliance by
reformulating as many of its coatings as possible to low solvent,
high solids and/or water base coatings~
(Rec,
3),
Meyer has calculated that the future solvent content in the
exterior coatings will meet the following schedule until
final
compliance can be achieved:
Month
July,
1984
4,0
December,
1984
3,8
July,
1985
December,
1985
3,1
Because it believes that the only method of achieving immediate
58—475
compliance is through the installation of controls
which are pro-
hibitively expensive,
the company has alleged that denial of its
variance request would result in an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship.
(Rec.
4),
In its Recommendation,
the Agency indicates that, at
a
meeting on December 13,
1983 with representatives of the the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the
drum and barrel manufacturing industry, the TJSEPA
expressed
its
opinion that there is presently no practical way of achieving
compliance with VOC emission limitations on interior coatings.
(Rec.
4).
Moreover,
the Agency believes “that Petitioner~scompliance
program
is reasonable
in that it is both cost effective and
should achieve the necessary VOC reductions.”
The Agency has
noted that the only means of achieving immediate compliance
involves the installation of afterburners.
Such afterburners,
in
addition to being extremely expensive to install, operate, and
maintain, also consume vast amounts of sometimes scarce natural
gas,
(Rec.
4),
Additionally, the provisions of Section 215,106
would limit the operation of these afterburners to only seven
months a year,
so that annual VOC emissions are likely to be
greater if afterburners are used to achieve compliance rather
than the proposed reformulation program.
(Rec.
4—5),
The Board
points
out
that it is immaterial
if VOC emissions are greater on
an annual basis so long as they are reduced during the ozone
season.
Thus,
the Agency believes that the Petitioner~sefforts
to develop
low
solvent coating technology should be encouraged
and
feels
that
Meyer~svariance request is reasonable.
(Rec,
4—5),
The
Agency
has
indicated that Meyer~snew facility is located
in a
100
light—medium
industrial/commercial area
with
no family
residences
in
the
immediate
vicinity (i.e.,
the nearest residences
are located directly east of the facility about one—fourth mile
away).
Because the plant is not in operation at the present
time,
the Agency has not received any complaints from area residents
pertaining to the Petitioner~srequested variance,
(Pet,
5),
The
Agency
believes that the extension of the deadline for
compliance
which
is sought by the company will not cause any
increased
or
detrimental health effects on the general populace
and states that Meyer will be expected to comply with its episode
action
plan which
requires a reduction of emissions during
periods
of high
ozone concentration to eliminate potentially
adverse
health
effects on the elderly and persons with respira~
tory and
cardiac
problems.
(Pee.
6).
Meyer~splant is located in an area which is classified as
nonattainment for ozone and the closest ozone monitoring station
is to the
southwest
at 1850 South
51st Street in Cicero, ILlinois.
Ozone
levels
in
excess
of
the ambient air
‘
uaity
standard of
0.12
parts per million
(ppm) were recorded four times at that
monitor
during 1983.
(Rec.
6).
58-476
The Agency has stated that the estimated actual VOC
emissions used in its numerical data base are calculated from the
solvent content in the coatings,
During the Petitioner’s
opera-
tions,
solvent vapors are exposed to a flame in a direct fired
curing oven which consumes an unknown portion of the solvent
before release into the atmosphere.
(Rec,
6),
The Agency has indicated that it agrees with the Petitioner
that a denial of the requested variance would constitute an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship because:
(1)
Meyer has been
diligently working with its suppliers to reduce its VOC emissions
for several years;
(2) the company is presently engaging in good
faith, diligent efforts to achieve compliance;
(3) Meyer is
continually working to increase the transfer efficiencies of its
coatings
(i.e.,
the greater the coating transfer efficiency,
the
lesser the volume of coatings utilized, thereby resulting in
a
reduction of VOC emissions);
(4)
installation of afterburners may
not be the most environmentally sound solution in the long run,
and would be extremely expensive and wasteful of natural gas;
(5)
during periods of high ambient ozone levels,
the Petitioner’s
facility
would
still be subject to the applicable episode regula-
tions,
and
(6) when the Board initially adopted the VOC emission
limitations in R80—5,
it was realized that the regulations were
“technology forcing” and it was anticipated that variances for
some facilities would be needed,
(Rec,
5).
Accordingly, the Board finds that denial of variance would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon the Petitioner
and will
grant the requested relief,
subject to the conditions
delineated in the Order,
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter,
ORDER
The Petitioner, Meyer
Steel Drum Inc.,
is hereby granted a
variance for its facility at 2000
S.
Kilbourn Avenue in Chicago,
Cook County,
Illinois until December 31,
1985 from the volatile
organic compound emission limitations delineated in 35 Ill.
Adm,
Code 215, Appendix C,
35
Ill. Adm, Code 215,211, and 35
Ill. Mm,
Code 215.204(j),
subject to the following conditions:
1.
The
Petitioner
shall submit written reports to the
Agency by August
3,
1984, and every third month thereafter,
detailing all progress made in achieving compliance with Section
215,204(j).
Said reports shall
include information on the names
of replacement coatings and the manufacturers’ specifications
including per cent solids by volume
arid weight, per cent VOC by
volume and weight, per cent water by volume and weight,
density
58~477
of coating, and
recommended operating parameters, detailed descrip-
tion of each test conducted
including test protocol, number of
runs,
and
complete original test results;
the
quantities
and
VOC
content of all coatings utilized during the reporting period; the
quantity of VOC reduction during the
reporting period; and any
other
information
which may
be requested by the Agency.
The
reports
shall
be sent
to the
following
addresses:
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Manager, Permit Section
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
Environmental Proteciton Agency
Division
of
Air Pollution Control
Manager,
Field
Operations
Section
1701 South First Avenue
Suite 600
Maywood,
Illinois
60153
2.
The Petitioner shall apply to the
Agency
for all requisite
operating permits by August
3,
1984 pursuant to Section 201.160(a),
3,
Petitioner shall maintain a daily log of drum production
as indicated on p,
53 of their variance petition.
4,
The Petitioner shall meet the following compliance
schedule pertaining to the solvent content
of its exterior
coat-
ings:
Month
Solvent Content (lb/gal)
January,
1985
3.8
July,
1985
3,5
December,
1985
3.1
5.
Within 45 days of the date of this
Order,
the Petitioner
shall execute
and
forward to the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control, Compliance Assurance
Section, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a
Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all terms
and conditions
of
this variance,
This
45 day
period shall be
held in
abeyance
for any period this
matter is being
appealed.
The form of the certificate shall be
as
follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),______
_____________________,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board in PCB
84—28
58-478
—7”
dated June 29,
1984, understand and
accept the said Order, realizing
that such acceptance renders all terms
and conditions thereto
binding and enforceable,
Meyer
Steel Drum, mc,
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board
Member
B. Forcade concurred.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the ~~7tlday of
~
,
1984 by a vote
/17,
~~‘-~-~d
~~thyMGunn,Clerk~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
58-479