ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
4,
1q82
LYON METAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 81—184
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
GEORGE
C. McKANN, KAREN S.
LYONS AND
THOMAS
E.
LANCTOT, GARDNER9
CARTON & DOUGLAS, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER.
PETF~R
E. ORLINSKY, ATTORNEY AT LAW AND TECHNICAL ADVISOR, APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
Goodman)
This matter comes before the Board
upon
a Variance
Petition
filed on November 16,
1981 by Lyon Metal Products,
Inc.
(Lyon)
which requested a variance from Rules 205(m)(1l(B) and 205(n)(t~G~
of Chapter 2~ Air Pollution
Control
Regulations
(Chapter
2)
to
allow an extension of
time
for compliance with the applicable
volatile organic compound
(VOC) regulations pertaining to emissions
from the Petitioner’s paint coating operations.
On December 1~,
1981, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed
its Recommendation which recommended that the variance be granted
for
a period
of
twenty—nine months,
sublect to specified conditions.
A
hearing was held on January 14,
1982.
Lyon owns and operates
a manufacturing plant in Montgomery,
T~aneCounty,
Illinois
(near the City
of Aurora)
which produces
metal products such
as
steel
shelving,
racks,
lockers, wardrobes,
metal
shop
lurniture,
chairs, stools,
and office furniture.
Th~
Petitioner has been
in business over 80 years and has operate~1 its
Montgomery plant for over
75
years.
Lyon currently employs 6~5
people, has an annual payroll
of $16,000,000,
and has paid over
$535,000
in
state and local taxes in 1980.
(Pet.
2).
The Petitioner presently operates
4 paint
dip
tanks pursuant
to
Agency operating permits which are scheduled to expire
on
December 30, 1982.
About
75
of Lyon’s products, such as metal
shop furniture and shelving,
are dipped in these tanks, thereby
utilizing
an
annual volume
o~
127,140 gallons
of
alkyd enamel
45—291
—2—
paint which has an average VOC of approximately 5.25 ihs./gallon,
(Pet.
3).
Accordingly,
there are about 333.7 tons of annual VOC
emissions from the paint tanks.
(Rec.
2).
However,
since
the
Board’s rule on surface coating, which has
a final compliance
date of December 31, 19827 establishes a
3 lhs./cjal. maximum
limit on the VOC component of paints used in metal
furniture
coating, the dip tank annual VOC emissions are limited to 190.7
tons under Rule 205(n)(1)(G) of Chapter
2.
Concurrently, Rule
205(m)(1)(B)
of Chapter
2 requires that Lyon submit an accept-
able compliance program to the Agency along with progress reports
on the use of low solvent coating technology which demonstrate the
initiation of process modifications to
allovi the use of
low solvent
coatings by April
1, 1982 and the completion of process
modif
i—
cations to allow
the use
of low solvent coatings by October
1,
1’~82,
Lyon has thoroughly investigated all presently known methods
off reducing
VOC
emissions and achieving nompliance with applicable
regulations,
including the use of water—borne paints, powder
coatings,
incineration, and continuous coaters.
(Pet.
5;
Ex.
3).
The
Petitioner has concluded that the best,
although most costly
and
technically difficult,
compliance method involves the appli-
cation of high solids coatings by electrodeposition which is
expected to cost $4,700,000 for installation at its main plant
in Montgomery,
Illinois and is estimated to have an installation
cost of $2,700,000 at
its other similar plant
in York, Pennsylvania.
(Peb.
6).
Because a suitable “off the shelf” electrodeposition system is
unavailable and extensive rearrangement and remodeling will be
required at both plants,
Lyon plans
to install the highly custom-
ized, unique electrodepositiori system in
3 phases to minimize
production losses,
avoid employee layoffs, utilize its own
specialized engineering personnel,
and spread out financial pay-
rients.
(Pet.
7—11;
Ex.
4—6).
In Phase
1, Lyon will install the
Montgomery monorail electrodeposition system for small parts and
complete the first electrodeposition line at the Montgomery plant
by March of
1983.
tn
Phase
2,
the Petitioner will install
a
second monorail system in its York facility, utilizing the
experience and knowledge gained in the prior installation, and
complete the York line by April of
1984.
In Phase
3, Lyon will
install the second Montgomery system, which is the most complicated
and which requires the most testing
(as it
is a plunge/dip/walking
beam electrodeposition arrangement),
and complete the second
Montgomery line by May of 1985.
(Pet.
7-13).
Because the
Petitioner anticipates numerous start—up problems and the need
for “debugging” of the equipment,
its strategy and compliance
schedule provides for the installation of the simplest line
first and the most complex line last,
so that its design and
construction expertise can be cumulatively enhanced
in order
to successful solve any problems which may develop.
(Pet.
7-13;
Ex.
6).
45—292
—3—
The Agency has calculated that,
upon final completion of Lyon’s
electrodeposition lines,
the plant emissions will only he 35
of
the allowable emissions,
so that the Petitioner will have achie~red
riot only compliance,
but will
be significantly under the allowable
emission rate.
(Rec.
4).
In the interim period, emissions will be
gradually reduced to achieve the best technical compliance possible
consistent with the equipment being installed.
By the end o~Phase
1 of the equipment installation program in March of 1983,
the Agency
estimates that VOC emissions will he about
221.5 tons/yr., and this
will be systematically reduced to 67 tons/yr. by the end of Phase
3
of the program in May of
1985,
(Rec,
4).
Accordingly, three months
after the original compliance date of December
31,
1982,
the
Montgomery
facility will have emissions which exceed the
VOC
limits
by 16,
hut this percentage will subsequently be incrementally
reduced
and
soon
eliminated
as
the
installation
of
equipment
proqresses.
(Rec.
4).
Moreover,
during
periods
of
high
ozone
concentration, the Petitioner has agreed to comply with its episode
action plan to limit emissions,
which will prevent any potentially
adverse health effects on
the elderly and persons with respirato.~y
and
cardiac
problems
from
photochemically
reactive
hydrocarbons
which contribute to ozone formation.
(Rec.
4).
The proximity of
an ozone monitoring station,
which
is
in Wheaton about
15 miles
northeast of Lyon’s plant, will help to insure against environmental
problems.
(Rec.
5).
Because the Montgomery facility is located in a mixed
residential and industrial area and there are some homes located
directly east of the plant, the Agency conducted a door-to—door
survey of various residents to ascertain whether any nearby people
had
obiections concerning the operations of Lyon’s plant or its
variance request.
There were no oblections.
(Rec.
4).
Addition-
ally,
the Agency has noted that the Petitioner~
(1) has been
diligently attempting to reduce
its VOC emissions since at
least
1978;
(2) has adequately demonstrated that a sequential, rather
than simultaneous, construction program
is necessitated because
of
financial and engineering constraints;
(3) will ultimately
achieve 65
overcompliance when all equipment
is installed and
working efficiently, and
(4) will provide sufficient safeguards
during periods
of high ozone concentration
(which are expected
to occur infrequently in the area of the plant based on previous
history)
by utilizing an episode action plan.
(Rec.
5).
Moreover,
it is recognized that compliance in two separate
~urisdictions (i.e.,
Illinois and Pennsylvania),
given the technic~i1
complexities and economic impact of
physically
handling
the
replace—
merit
of
existing
engineering
systems
and
the
concurrent
installation
of two
large,
new,
fully—operational, customized electrodeposition
systems that are unique
in their application to the Petitioner and
are not available anywhere else at the present time,
is physically
impossible.
Additionally, the Petitioner has indicated that this
situation is exacerbated by the present economic climate
off high
45—293
—4—
interest rates,
turbulent financial markets,
and
an earnings
decline
of
almost 30
during 1980 which has adversely affected
Lyor~s ability
to raise the necessary funds.
(Pet.
6—7).
The Agency has recommended that the Board
grant the
requested
variance,
subject to specified conditions.
The Board
finds
that
denial
of
the variance would impose
an
arbitrary
or norcasonable
hardship upon Petitioner, and agrees with the Agencys
conclusion
that an extension of Lyon’s compliance deadline
is
appropriate.
Accordingly.~the Board
will,
grant
the requested
variance1
eublect
to conditions
which
are delineated
in the Board~s
Order.
This Opinion constitutes
the Roard’s findings o~
fact
arid
conclusions of law in this matter.
OPOER
The Petitioner,
Lyon Metal Products,
Inc.,
is hereby granted
a variance from Rules 205(m)(1)(B) and 205(n)(1)(G)
of
Chapter
2~
Air Pollution Control Regulations until May
31,
191351
subject
to
the following conditions~
1.
Within 28 days of the date of this Order,
and
every third month thereafter,
Petitioner
sha:1l
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
off the reconstruction program,
and
any
other pertinent information which may be
requested by the Agency.
2.
Within forty-five days of the date
of
this
Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward
to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
Enforcement Programs,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706,
a
Certificate
of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
to
aL I
terms and conditions of this variance.
This
forty—five day period
shall.
he held in
abeyance
for any period this matter
is being appealed..
The form of the certificate
shall he
as
fol1oes~
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We)
,
______
,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in
PC)3
S1-184,
45—294
—5—
dated
___,
understand
and
acc~ept
the said Order,
realizing
that such
acceptance renders
all ter!~s
and conditions thereto binding and enforceable,
Petitioner
ByrAuthor~~TAgent
Title
flate
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board, hereby cFtify
that t~e~hove Opinion
and Order
were adopted on the
4
~
day
ofi~~~
_______
1982
by a vote
of
~
0
Christan
r~.
Moffet,~/J.~lerk
Illinois Pollution ~t’itrol
Board
45—295