1. 59~425

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 22,
1984
ENGINEERED COATED PROEUCTS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v,
)
PCB 84~5O
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Theodore Meyer):
On April
2,
1984, Engineered
Coated Products,
Inc.,
(Engineered)
filed a Petition
for Variance
for
its facility which coats and
laminates high
performance, pressure
sensitive
adhesive
tapes for
use
in the automotive and major appliance industries.
Specifically,
Engineered
requests variance from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 215.204(c)
(formerly
Rule
205(n)(1)(C)
of Chapter
2)1
until
November
15,
1984.
That
regulation contains the
emission limitation for
operations such
as Engineered~s.
Attendant to that
rule
are
Sections 215.211
and
215.212 which contain
the relevant
compliance
plan requirements and
compliance date of December 31,
1983.
Variance from
these regulations was
already granted by the Board
in ~4neered
Coated product~~Inc,
V.
Illinois Environmental
~
(PCB
82~2;
49 PCB 213) on October 28,
1982
until April
1,
1984.
Engineered
is now seeking to extend variance
until November
15,
1984.
On May
3,
1984,
the Board ordered Petitioner to file additional
information,
On
May 29,
1984,
Petitioner filed
an
Amended Petition
for Variance with
the
Agency.
The amended petition
requested
the
incorporation of the prior record in the case of PCB ~82-~2~
Coated Products Inc.,
v.
Illinois Environmental Protection ~
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed its Recommendation
on June
27, 1984.
A hearing
was
held on July 9,
1984.
No members
of the public were present
and
no
public comments
have
been
received by the
Board in
this matter,
Petitioner
owns and
operates a facility at 2800 Shermer
Road, Northbrook
which
coats and laminates high performance,
pressure sensitive
adhesive
tapes
for use
in the automobile and
major appliance industries,
Included
in Petitioner~s
facility
is
one coater/laminator machine which applies adhesives
to paper,
foil,
film, and other miscellaneous materials.
After application
of the adhesives,
the
materials are dried in a
gas—fired oven.
Petitioner utilizes
in excess of 40
different
adhesives which
contain volatile
organic material
(hereinafter,
~VOM~).
Section
59~425

2—
215~2O4(c)
requires that the VOM content in Petitioner’s
adhesives
be limited to
2.9 lb/gal
(0.35 kg/I).
:L9@3,
Petitioner applied 670,616
pounds of
adhesives.
The resultant
VOM emissions were 332,869
lb/yr or
166 ton/yr~
Petitioner’s
allowable VOM emission rate
for 1983
was 135 ton/yr.
Thus,
the
1983 emissions exceeded
the allowable
limitation by
approximately
23,
(Am.
Pet,)
The
compliance plan envisioned
by Petitioner
during its
previous variance
sought to replace
its high VOM
adhesives
with
other adhesives
having
lower VOM contents.
To
date, Petitioner~s
reformulation
program has been only
partially
successful,
Since
1981,
it has
reduced the average VOM
content of its
adhesives
from
3~9
lb/gal
to 3.56 lb/gal.
Petitioner
does
not believe,
however, that
it will be able
to
further
reduce to
the required
2.9
lb/gal
limitation in the immediate
future.
For
that
reason,
Petitioner is
now planning to achieve
compliance in
accordance
with
Section
215.205, Alternative
Emission
Limitations, by install-
ing a
catalytic
afterburner with
a
destruction
efficiency of
at
least 95.
The specifics of Petitioner’s compliance program are
as
follow~
May
15,
1984
Place purchase order
JUne
15,
1984
Commence
construction
October
15,
1984
Complete construction
November
15,
1984
Demonstrate compliance
The cost
of the controls will be
approximately
$164,000.
The
Agency
is of the opinion that
Petitioner~s
compliance
program will bring
it
into
compliance
in an
expeditious
manner.
The Agency
does
not
necessarily
believe,
however,
that
the
installa—
tion of an
afterburner
is
the
most
environmentally
sound
means
of
achieving compliance.
in addition to being
extremely
costly
to
install and
operate, afterburners also
consume
vast
amounts of
sometimes
scarce natural gas.
Afterburners
also
produce emissions
of nitrogen oxides which are a major factor in
the
formation
of
ac:Ld rain
and ozone.
Moreover, pursuant
to the
provisions
of
Section 215.106,
the afterburners would
only have
to
be
operated
seven months
a year.
Thus the annual VOM emissions are likely
to
be
greater if
afterburners are utilized
to
achieve compliance
than
if
reformulation
is
utilized,
For
that
reason,
the
Agency
believes that
efforts
to
develop
low
solvent
coating
technology
should he encouraged.
The
Board
notes
that VOM
emissions
in
non-
ozone season
months
are
not
a
relevant
issue,
Petitioner’s
facility
is
located
in a mixed
commercial/resi—
dentia:i area,
The
nearest
residences
are
approximately
800
feet
west of the
facility.
The
Agency
has
received no
complaints
from
area residents
concerning
Petitioner’s
variance
request.
59-426

rhe
emissions in question are volatile organic materials
which
~ontribute to the formation of ozone,
High levels of ozone
cci
nc~veadverse health effects on the elderly and persons with
respixauoiy and cardiac problems.
The Agency believes, however,
that t~e extension of the compliance deadline sought
by
Petitioner
~ nt. cause any increased health effects.
During the period
of th~variance, Petitioner will be expected to
comply
with its
eptsode action plan which requires reductions of emissions during
pe~ivisof high ozone concentration.
~ioner’s
facility is located in ar area which has been
cuts~
ied as nonattainment for ozone,
The closest ozone monitoring
st~tr~isare located in Arlington Heights which is approximately
ei~htmiles to the southwest and in Skokie which is approximately
seven a’
es to the southeast,
In 1983 the primary ambient air
quality standard for ozone of 0.12 ppm was not exceeded at either
monit r
For the following reasons, the Board agrees that a denial of
th~requested variance would constitute an arbitrary and un~
rec sortable hardship:
a,
Petitioner has been diligently working to reduce its
VON emissions for several years.
vi
The Agency believes that Petitioner’s present efforts
to achieve compliance will
be
equally as diligent.
r
During the variance period, the facility would stiL
be
tr~jectto the episode regulations contained in Section 244
iring periods of high ambient ozone
levels,
~$e
Aciency does not disagree with any factual allegation
as.
in Petitioner’s Petition for Variance or
in the Amendments
accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Act,
~i:
amended August
2,
1978, by P.A, 80~1299, Ill. Rev. Stat.,
Chaptc~111½,
Section 1035,
the Board may grant variances only if
viey crc consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 42
U.S.C
~IO1, et.
seq.
In the present case,
Petitioner’s control
ioc’rarr
is identical to one that Petitioner has agreed to implement
~.
~r:u~
to a Consent Order entered into with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(See ~Exhibit 1”)
(Rec.
4)
1~’orthat reason, the Board grants Petitioner variance from
S~cvioovi5.204(c) and the attendant compliance rules, subject to
conaiviors set out in the order,
Variance
is granted
until
December 15,
1984 although Petitioner expects to achieve compliance
on or Tho~tNovember 15, 1984,
The additional month is allowed
~v th~tarty unanticipated difficulties can be corrected during
The ~r
‘~
of the variance,
59-427

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
Petitioner, Engineered Coated Products,
Inc.,
is hereby
granted
a variance for its coating and laminating facility located
in Northbrook,
Illinois, from April
1,
1984 until December 15,
1984 from
35
Ill Adm. Code 215, Section 215,204(c)
(formerly Rule
205(n)(i)(C)
of
Chapter
2)
and
Sections
215.211 and 215.212
subject to the following conditions:
a.
On or before November 15,
1984, Petitioner shall per~
form a stack test on its afterburner in accordance with the
special condition set forth in Construction Permit #84050016.
Petitioner shall notify the Agency of the date of said stack
test at least 14 days prior to the test, and the Agency
shall be allowed to witness the test and review all test
data,
Notification shall be made to the Agency at the
following addresses:
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
Maywood,
Illinois 60153
vi
On or before December 15,
1984,
Petitioner shall apply
to the Agency for all requisite operating permits.
C.
Within 45 days of the Board’s Final Order herein,
Petitioner 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
the
Agency at the addresses specified in Paragraph (a),
~
The 45 day period shall be held in abeyance during any
period that this matter is being appealed.
The form of
Certification shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
___
,
having
read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB
84~50,dated August 22,
1984, understand and accept the said
Orders
realizing that such acceptance renders all t~r~s
and
59-428

conditions
thereto binding and enforceable.
Engineered Coated
Products,
Inc.
By:
Authorized
Agent
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Ill:Lnois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the ~
~
~‘-z~~?
day of
________________,
1984 by a vote
of
~
(~)
)
Dorothy
M~ unn,
Clerk
Illinois
~Pollution
Control Board
59-429

Back to top