ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
16,
1983
ST. CHARLES MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 82—156
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER
& GEARLDSON (MICHAEL
F.
DOLAN,
OF COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ST. CHARLES MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY.
PETER E.
ORLINSKY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J.
Nega):
This matter comes before the Board upon a December 30,
1982
petition for variance filed by the St. Charles Manufacturing
Company (Company).
The Company has requested a variance
from
Rule 205(n)(1)(G) of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution
(Chapter
2)
to allow
it to delay compliance with the emission limitation
for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)
discharged
from its metal
furniture coating operations.
On January 31,
1983,
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a recommendation
that variance be granted until August 31,
1983,
subject to
certain conditions.
A hearing was held on April
11,
1983.
The Company owns and operates a plant in St. Charles,
Kane County,
Illinois which manufactures high—quality custom
metal kitchen cabinets and institutional casework for hospitals,
schools, laboratories,
dental offices, and checkout counters.
The plant, which employs about 350 people and has an annual
payroll of over $10,000,000.00 is
located in an industrial!
commercial
area.
The nearest residents live about 1/2 mile
south of the Petitioner’s plant.
The Agency has received no
complaints
about the facility’s operation and no one has ob-
jected to the variance.
The area has been designated by the
Agency as a nonattainment area for ozone and during 1981
the 0.12 ppm standard for ozone was only exceeded once.
The closest monitoring station is about
10 miles to the north
in Elgin.
Included in its
St. Charles
facility are three water—
wash paint spray booths and two bake ovens used for painting
the
metal components.
Acid resistant paint
is used on the
52-369
2
Petitioner’s laboratory paint line, while non—acid resistant
paint is used on its standard and custom color paint
lines.
Rule 205(j)
of Chapter
2 requires that metal furniture
coating operations must be in compliance with Rule 205(n)(l)(G)
of Chapter
2 by December 31,
1982.
Rule 205(n)(l)(G)
of Chapter 2
limits VOC emissions from metal
furniture coating operations
to 3.0 lb/gal.
In 1982, the Company used approximately 26,760 gallons
of coatings
in its metal furniture operations.
The average
VOC content of these coating was 3.48
lb/gal.
Accordingly,
VOC emissions in 1982 from these operations were 46.63 tons.
If Rule 205(n)(l)(G) had been in effect
in 1982, the Company’s
VOC emissions from this process would have ~beenlimited to
40.14 tons.
However,
since the Company is planning to reformulate
its coatings
to high solids paints,
it will be able to utilize
a lesser volume of coatings in the near future.
If the
Petitioner had been using
such high solid paints in 1982,
it
would only have required 24,577 gallons of coatings and the
resultant allowable VOC emissions would have been 36.87 tons.
The Petitioner alleges that it has been unable to meet
the compliance date because acceptable alternate high solid
paints for its non-acid resistant paint lines have yet to be
completely developed.
The Company has worked closely with its
suppliers since June,
1979 in order to develop the necessary
reformulations.
Although the Company was able to achieve
compliance in its acid resistant paint line by June,
1982,
unexpected technical problems have delayed final compliance
by some of its non—acid resistant and custom color paints.
However, the Company believes that its paint reformulation
process is nearing completion and that the primary problems
have been solved,
so that the remaining paints can be
in
compliance by August 31,
1983.
Based upon these facts,
the Board finds that St. Charles
Manufacturing Company has been diligently attempting to comply
with the VOC limitation and that
it continues to do so.
It
is unlikely that the Petitioner’s discharges would cause or
contribute to a violation of the ozone standard since its
episode action plan should provide sufficient safeguards
during periods
of high ozone concentration.
While there are
no specific dollar figures
in the record as to the precise
cost of compliance, it would be unreasonable
for the Board to
impose substantial costs upon the Petitioner to attain immediate
compliance when there is substantial probability of new
technology being developed during the variance period which would
allow compliance to be attained at a much
lower cost.
Accordingly,
the Board will condition this variance upon the use of coating
materials which have a VOC content
less
than,
or equal
to,
the
presently used materials.
52-370
3
The Board finds that denial
of the requested variance
would cause an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon the Company
and concludes that variance should be granted subject to the
conditions recommended by the Agency,
which were not objected to
by the Petitioner.
The period of the variance has been lengthened
by two months since the requested schedule was extremely tight.
This Opinion constitutes the T~oard’sfindings of fact arid
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
St. Charles Manufacturing Company is hereby granted
a variance
from Rule 205(n)(1)(G)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Regulations
until
October 31,
1983,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
St. Charles Manufacturing Company shall expeditiously
proceed with the development and testing of protective
coating materials which have a VOC content less than the
presently used materials.
During the period of this
variance,
the average yearly VOC content from metal
furniture coating operations
shall not exceed 3.48 lb/gal.
2.
No later than July 16, 1983,
and again by no later than
October
31,
1983,
St. Charles Manufacturing Company shall
submit written reports
to the Agency detailing all
progress made
in achieving compliance with Rule 205(n)(1)(G)
of Chapter 2.
These 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 reasonably be requested by the Agency.
The
reports
shall he
sent to the following addresses:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Programs Coordinator
2200 ChurchiXi Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division
of Air Pollution Control
Region
1
—
Field Operations Section
1701 South First Avenue
Maywood,
Illinois
60153
3.
On, or before, July 16, 1983,
St. Charles Manufacturing
Company shall apply to the Agency for all requisite
operating permits pursuant to Rule 103(b)(6~(A~of
Chapter
2.
52-371
4
4.
Within
45 days of the date of this Order,
St.
Charles
Manufacturing Company 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 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
The 45—day period shall
be held in abeyance during any period that this matter
is being appealed.
The
form
of said Certification shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We)
,
hereby
accepts and agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 82—156, dated June
16, 1983.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereb~certifythat
the ab ye Opinion and Order was adopted
on the _____________day of _______________________,
1983 by
a vote of
‘?—O
Illinois Pollution
Board
52-372