ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February 10,
1983
ARVEY CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 82—9
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
JAMES
K. ARTHUR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, AND
PETER ORLINSKY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER
flF THE BOARD (by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
variance of the Arvey Corporation,
filed January 29, 1982 as
amended March 10,
1982 and July 26,
1982.
On August 23, 1982
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed
its Recommendation in support of grant of variance.
Hearing
was held December 10,
1982.
The Arvey Corporate—Lamcote Division operates
a facility
at 3450 N. Kimball, Chicago for the laminating and coating of
plastic films and papers, Arvey’s most notable products being
numerical control tapes and sterilizable medical packaging.
The
plant employs 131 people.
Arvey operates
7 laminator/coaters,
and utilizes as many as 37 types of adhesive coatings which
contain volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Arvey seeks yariance
until December
1, 1984 from the 0.35 kg/i
(2.9 lb gal) VOC
emission limit of Rule 205(n)(1)(C) of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution.
Based on 1980 figures
(see Chart 1), Arvey must reduce its
VOC emission by 256,265
lbs/yr.
Arvey proposes to reduce its
total emissions of 561,044
lbs. to 279,
156 lbs.
by converting
12 of the 37 active adhesive coatings to water-based adhesives
or high solids adhesives that have 2.9 lbs. VOC/ gallon or less.
Arvey
does not plan to reformulate all adhesives, as
it believes
that compliance can be achieved by reformation of its highest
volume adhesives and by “bubbling” the rest, pursuant to the
R81—20 Alternative Control Strategy (ACS)
Regulations.
Reformulation of the 12 adhesives involves customer approval
tests,
equipment modification, and
in some instances approval by
the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration; Arvey has been working
with its suppliers to effectuate adhesive conversions since 1980.
51-121
2
As an alternative means of compliance,
Arvey has
investigated the feasibility of installing afterburners on its
laminators,
but has rejected that option.
If chosen, the option
would involve installation of afterburners on
3 laminators at a
capital cost of $750,000, and taking
4 out of service due to both
the high initial capital costs and projected high operation and
maintenance costs.
The Agency recommends grant of variance with conditions.
The Agency believes Arvey has been and will continue to be
diligent in seeking compliance with the R78—3,
4 “technology-
forcing” VOC limitations,
As to environmental and health
effects, it reports that Arvey is located in a mixed/industrial
residential
area, which has been classified as non-attainment for
hydrocarbons.
The Agency notes that in
1981, the 0.12 ppm ozone
standard was not exceeded at either of the two ozone monitoring
stations located respectively 4½ miles northwest and southwest
of Arvey.
Given that Arvey will be decreasing its VOC emissions
during any variance period, the Agency believes that variance
will not cause any increased health effects on the susceptible
population.
The Agency of course expects that Arvey will comply
with its agreed episode action plan for reduction of hydrocarbon
emissions during periods of high ozone concentrations.
Because of Arvey’s failure to submit a plan demonstrating
ability to timely meet the Rule 205(n)(1)(C) VOC emission limit’s
compliance date of December 31,
1982,
the Agency denied a
January 10,
1980 operating permit application for the
7 laminator~
coaters.
No permits have been issued since that date because of
Arvey’s continuing inability to demonstrate timely compliance.
The Agency therefore recommends that variance be conditioned on
prompt application for operating permits,
Regular reports
concerning compliance efforts are also suggested.
In addition,
the Agency recommends that Arvey be ordered to apply for an
R81—20 ACS permit.
Finally, concerning consistency of variance
with the Clean Air Act, the Agency represents that
if the Board
grants variance, that the variance order will be submitted to
USEPA as
a SIP revision.
The Board finds that denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Variance from Rule
205(n)(1)(C) is granted subject to conditions.
Th? Board
declines to incorporate the ACS permit application condition in
the form suggested by the Agency.
The Board will instead require
Arvey to file a plan demonstrating that compliance will be
achieved on or before the end of the variance period,
to be
accompanied by an ACS permit application in the event that the
plan contemplates use of an ACS,
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
51-122
3
ORDER
1.
Petitioner,
Arvey Corporation-Lamcote Division,
is
hereby granted a variance from Rule 205(n)(1)(C)
of Chapter
2,
for its facility located at 3450 N. Kimball, Chicago until
December 31,
1984, subject to the following conditions:
a.
Within 35 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall apply to the Agency for all applicable operating
permits.
Said permit applications shall contain all
information required by Rules 103(b)(3),
103(b)(4),
and 103(b)(5)
of Chapter 2.
b.
Within 35 days of the date of this Order,
and every
third month thereafter, Petitioner shall submit written
reports to the Agency detailing all progress made
in
achieving compliance with Rule 205(n)(1)(C)
of Chapter
2.
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 pertinent
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
Control Programs Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, IL
62706
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Region
1, Fields Operations Section
1701 South First Avenue
Maywood,
IL
60153
c.
No later than June 1,
1984, Petitioner shall file with
the Agency a plan
to, and proof that the plan will,
achieve compliance with Rule 205(n)(1)(C)
of Chapter
2,
by December 31,
1984.
If such plan contemplates that compliance will he
achieved through use of an R81—20 Alternative Control
Strategy
(ACS),
Petitioner shall
file
at~the same time
an ACS permit application,which shall cohtain all
information required by Section 212.110 of the Board’s
Rules
for Alternative Control Strategy,
R81—20.
2)
Within 45 days
of the date of this Order,
Petitionec
shall execute a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be
bound to all terms and conditions of the variance.
Said Certi-
fication shall
he submitted to both the Agency at the address
specified in paragraph 1(b), ~ra.
The 45 day period shall he
held
in abeyance during any period that this matter
is being app~a1e~.
The form of said Certification shall he as follows:
51-123
4
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
____________________
____
____,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in PCB 82—9,
dated
___________——_____
_________,
understand and accept the
said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Chrsitan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ~ertify that the above Opinion an~1Order
was adopte~or~the
I
day of
~
,
1983 by
avoteof~:~~—~
I
:
Christan
L; Mo~fett
lerk
Illinois Pollution ~CdntrolRoar~
51-124