ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

January 26, 1984

RHEfl1

MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

)

CONTAINER DIVISION,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 83—79

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

MS. DIXIE

L. LASWELL

APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF RHEEM MANUFACTURING

COMPANY, CONTAINER DIVISION.

MR. PETER E. ORLINSXY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

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

This matter comes before the Board upon a Juno 29,

1983, petition for variance filed by

Rheem

Manufacturing

Company, Container Division (“Rheem”); as amended August 29,

1983. The company has requested a variance from Rule 104(h)(1),

Rule 205(j)tt) and Rule 205(n)(1)(j) of Chapter 2: Air

Pollution, to allow it to delay compliance with the emission

limitation for volatile organic compounds (VOC5) discharged

from its steel drum and pail coating lines.

The recent codification of applicable

rules to 35

Illinois Administrative Code

is as follows:

Rule

Section

104(h)(1)

215.212

205(j)(1)

215.211 (a)

205(nfll)(i)

215.204 (j)

On October 26, 1983, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Agency”) filed a recommendation that variance be

granted subject to certain conditions. Hearing

was

held on

November

18, 1983.

56-71

---

At the .Tanuary 12, 1984 regular Board meeting, this

case was on the Board~sagenda for discussion and was

discussed

at

that meeting,

Pursuant to Section 38 of the

Environmental Protection Act, and extensions previously

filed by Rheem, final Board action is due on or before

January 27, 1984. Late January

23,

1984, a letter from

Rheem~s counsel was delivered to

each Board member. That

letter addressed the merits of the case, and specifically

the discussion by the Board at the January .12, 1984 meeting.

This highly unusual action by Rheem creates two problems.

First, the letter did not follow 35 111, Mm. Code Part 101,

specifically Section 101.103 and 101.104. And, although the

letter did include the name of

the

Agency attorney on the

distribution list, no proof of service was filed as required

by Section 103.123(b),

r2he

second problem concerns timing. By providing a

letter

to the individual Board

members three

days before the

decision deadline and not_providing a waiver

of the deadline,

Rheem

has effectively precluded an Agency

response. If the

Board allows a response time, the variance may issue by operation

of law (Section 38 of the Act). However Rheem~sletter

contains no new facts or arguments beyond those of the Petition

and Amended Petition, and therefore

should

not prejudice the

Agency~s

position.

Therefore, to avoid the

appearance

of ax parte contact

in violation

of Section 101.121(a), the

Board ~~by

enters a copy of that

letter into the record of

this case as a public

comment.

Rheem owns and operates

a

facility

at

7600 South Kedzie

Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60652, which manufactures steel

drums and pails. Rheem indicated that by the end of 1983,

it would discontinue pail manufacture at its

Chicago facility

(Pet, p.2). The steel

drums are built

to order for customers

and are used to ship and store such materials as insecticides,

fungicides,

poison, flammable liquids

and food. Since the

containers are used for hazardous materials, they

are regulated

by the U.S. Department of Transportation

and by the Illinois

Department

of Transportation

Pet. p. 6). Field testing is

required prior to the use ci any new coating

material (Pet.

The

manufacturing

process involves the application of

an exterior coating and subsequent oven drying.

After the

steel drum is formed, the interior coating is spray applied

and oven dried.

The coating application and drying processes

are

the subject of the present variance

request.

Since 1978, Rheem has been modifying processes and

working with suppliers to develop acceptable substitute

coatings. Among the options studied are: use of high

56-72

---

solids, -t

-

- . ,

ultra violet

curing cle ,,t~

r

‘tv

ft. bt.rners, vapor

recovery rid c.- tcr n-

.

o dtte efforts

have been

partial~y

~. ~.

t

C.

~.

ca.

r~1uce3 solutions to

achieve

‘~,

ul

e

“

~.

1! 2 4

j)

by December

31,

1983 (Pc

~

)

I

t

.

rc

e. cis have

failed for

several ca

o

b

-

‘c

t

.rol rt tag unacceptable,

install’ x~

•

-r

I’

‘

.

p’ohibitive, space

-,

.~

~

p crt, and dangers of

Rhecn

.‘

as many cf t

bated

.t

with c flo

ir5radr

p3titlo

I

C’

a •j

~t

4

by reformulating

ed ..oating meets

c

e

a Inery and

Fey

n

—‘I.

vU

.ai

stand. ‘I

wcud

be

be net

Pt

D 0

‘t I-.

t.

~ “a.,

Rheem

has

-

OC

limitations

1” n

re restrictive

- ..

.

s’

.aone

facilities

~ ‘

ti

.Fe standards could

r

•

o er

‘,

1982, 49 PCB 87).

It

(3

be’.

ar d

tee

1~

furdo

tie

.

Pe ,xt

a) lot

l~e

fri 3~

c dtfl

°

e. oA completely,

act.apt.able

d

ta

being

14..

j hese facts,

c.

tn e w er new

t

i.

r’e

peLiod

would

4

2

a) requires

-

t

o~environmental

..~ I

flows:

:uaJ. information, of

~cc:1.bi.ng

the

1..

bscharge

may

linitata. s z

-

explos’o

1

r

$

I

I

.

.

£3

S

*

t

•1

Vat

t

°

-

iroac I

tic

r

C-

)‘

Vt’

Ca4.a

C

a

‘S

“I

i-~IcftheActor

B,

.

I (prior to

Xe

(~)‘

e

I wac ‘It. 2:

kir

---

Pollut

)

the req c’tc

adopted p’~x

Is

I

11 ~

r

i.,

r

¶

tin

Board

may

grant

..th

the Clean Air Act

ederal regulations

ct

Ot.

104.122(a)).

Rheem has

ppl c

I

Pt.’’

herein, tu,J

Act,

12

usage c~ t

frcmti

~t. I

pailc.

of ttt z

this

p8.3

.

will nct

-

n

‘-

na t~

r

tot

II

h~r -I

lid p.

will

)°

CutI

T

opc a 1.

1

the a

t:

octions, as described

pa

i

of the Clean

Air

‘sa

ci

upon

r u tion in emissions

srociated

with

the

r

o

ii attainment or

n. nce will not

y r tions are

cur—

0

.)

~rd,

based

upon

o

1

3

atel with pail coating

c no violations of

--1

J

-Itt

C.

E

S.

1

.-,

at t

S

t

I’

based r

to

I

Each

)f t

VOC en’

i

to24

*

The Bot’

(305,036.00

lb0

and 13

digits. 9owner ~‘-tey

addition fr r

ti

b... ~

Cx. 1). Ther.fo

-

-~

to

two

signif

3.

v ce be granted

-

a

¶

Agcncy

~e

woula

c

is

r the 1982 total

r ~

en’s

petition

..or.tatn 8 significant

attipltcation and

-

nicaoft

fdigitsthose numbers(Pet.

p. 1,

I,

---

Tha~

Lt L

b

varia3ce a3d

~ ~g~nc.

that air ~ia

itj

a3d t~

impacted oy ~

~o

of

However, in. its ane. f~

lette~

to th~

~ii

1~

limitation

o~ I ~0

five

dais a gee’ a~f

million ourf

o V~

produced i3

Oi~

emissions of o e~ o~i

not

iVOLLI

pL

.0

Secti

i~ of ti

S

alloWS th3 3~ d

L G~

vjjtlj t3

A

emon~

the

Ciea ~i

~.t.

TLCLL:

3

n.th

lbs. of OC t~

ea

larger or A

(

ore mi.

~i ~ t

d

law a~i

1983,

3 C

April

21,

(Com~1A

30th 5?

i

r

to the ‘ub~~c

irrpobirj

T

3

md corclu~i

1

s petition for

~o r~ndation

conclude

r~n~ ‘I not he

adversely

C

of VOC per

year.

~on ~rf the January

23, 1984

~r’~ Acem requests a

a Pre~mming one

shift,

~his

equals

over one

~a ~as no evidence

B ird can

conclude

that

~OCperyearwill

PL0LPCt~0fl

Act only

time ex~ent consistent

~uant

thereto.

federal

ambient

40,000 lbs/yr

Rheem wishes

~

u tion, it must

not violate

va:iarce up to 240,000

a variance for

the

3

o~ e~ionstrating that

t?nt with

federal

t I Impact,

The

limitations

in

53 March 10,

ISPA, BCE

83—1,

iou Section

215,212

“ompliance

Dates).

g

ns for

those subject

* j)

The Board is

3ompliance

program

t December 31, 1985.

ii tirdings of

fact

~i

t~

hereby g a it

(a) and 215 2~2cub~e

~iror Division is

4

j)

215,211

o

g ~onditions:

---

6

1. This variance shall expire on

December

31, 1985.

2.

Rheem

Manufacturing Company, Container Division

shall expeditiously proceed

with

the development

and

implementation of coating materials which have

a

VOC

content less than the presently used material.

During the period of this variance (1) the average

VOC content of exterior coating, interior coating

and air dried coating shall not exceed 3.86 lb./gal.,

4.99 lb./gal. and 4.76 lb./gal. respectively,

and

(2)

the total

VOC

emission shall not exceed

240,000 lb./year.

3.

No

later than 28 days from executing the certificate,

Rheem

shall submit to the Agency a compliance plan

in accordance with 35 Ill. Mm.

Code

201 Subpart H,

including a project completion schedule.

Every

third

month

thereafter

Rheem

shall submit written

reports to the Agency detailing all progress made

in achieving compliance with 35 Ill.

Mm.

Code

215.204(j). Said reports shall include information

on the quantity and

VOC

content of all coatings

utilized during the reporting period, a description

of the status of the reformulation program, and

any other information

which

may be requested by

the

Agency.

The reports shal1 be sent to 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

Maywood, Illinois

4.

Within 28 days of the Board’s final Order herein,

Petitioner shall apply to the

Agency

for all

requisite operating permits pursuant to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code

201.160.

5.

Within 45 days of the Board’s final Order herein,

Petitioner shall execute a Certification of

Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to al 1 terms

and conditions of the variance. Said Certification

shall be submitted to the Agency at the address

IcR-78

---

7

specified in paragraph 3. The 45 day period shall

be held in abeyance during any period that this

matter is being appealed. The form of said

Certification shall he as follows~

CERTIFICATION

I, (We)

____

_____

___________

hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and

conditions of the Order of the Pollution Control Board in

PCB 83-79, dated January 26, 1984.

Petitioner

~tuthorized Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and

Order was adopted on

the ~

day of

1984 by a vote

of

____

____

______

Christan L, Moffett,

Cl~~

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

~R-77