ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

December

4,

1980

AMERICAN CAN COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 80—169

)

tLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

I.

 Goodman)

On September 19,

 1980 Petitioner sought variance from the

following air pollution control rules of the Board for its

Englewood plant in Chicago, which manufactures metal containers

for

 a variety of uses:

 Rules 104(c),

 205(j),

 205(m)(1)(B)(ii)

and (iii),

 205(m)(1)(C)(iii), and 205(n)(1)(B) of Chapter

2.

Grant of variance will enable the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency) to issue an operating permit and to submit the

variance as a SIP revision

 (see §110 of the Clean Air Act,

42

U.S.C.

 §7410, et sea.).

The plant,

 a 5—story. 1,875,000—square—foot structure,

is

located on 20 acres of land at 6017 South Western Avenue.

It

operates

 24 hours per day,

 7 days per week.

 Petitioner’s

processes consist of coating sheets of metal and applying sealing

compounds to produce metal containers

 (cans) for such products as

paint,

 food, motor oil, and aerosols.

 Petitioner’s 123 lines

apply 100 different coatings and compounds to metal sheets and

pre—formed ends.

 Following application, the coatings and

compounds are cured in dryers and ovens which drive off volatile

organic materials (VOM) through exhaust stacks and into the

atmosphere (Rec.,p.2).

 A total

 of 412,677 gallons of coating

and compound materials were applied during the year 1979 during

the four types of coating operations

 (overvarnish; sideseam spray

coating; end sealing compound;

 and interior and exterior sheet

base coating)

 (Pet.,p.12).

Petitioner has introduced low solvent materials

 (LSM)

 into

its processes as they have developed within its coating industry,

including water—borne materials, high solids, and ultraviolet

curables.

 Of the 39 coating materials presently used,

 4 comply

with the VOM emission limitations in Rule 205(n)(1)(B) and 35 do

not (Pet.,p.13).

The nearest Agency air monitoring station is at Lindbloom

T~!igh School, 6130 South Wolcott Avenue, Chicago, approximately

one mile southeast of the facility.

 The area is generally a

40—65

—2—

mixed residential—commercial—industrial

 area, with residences

located directly west of Petitioner’s plant.

During April through October of 1979, Agency samples at the

high school indicated that only

 5 of 4,308 samples evidenced

violations of the 0.08 parts1per million

 (ppm)

 Illinois Ambient

Air Quality Standard (IAAQS)

 and none exceeded the federal

standard of 0.12,

 for photochemical oxidants (ozone).

Petitioner’s VOM emissions contribute to those ozone concentra-

tion levels because the emissions are photochemically reactive;

as such, under certain weather conditions they contribute to the

formation of ozone,

 Although high ozone levels can have adverse

health effects, especially upon the elderly and people with

respiratory and cardiac problems,

 the Agency’s Recommendation

states that granting an extension of Rule 205(m) (1) (B)(iii)’s

final compliance date of October

1,

 1982 to December 31,

1984

should not cause any increased adverse health effects

 (Rec.,p.6).

This is because Petitioner’s total

VOM

emissions should continually

decrease from their present annual 593.5—ton level

 to a level of

235.9 tons annually by 1985,

 some 50 tons less than the maximum

allowable level by December 31, 1982 under Rule 205(n)(1)(B) of

286.4 tons.

 Petitioner has projected that on December 31,

1982

its emission level will be 347.8 tons

 (Pet.,p.5).

Petitioner also seeks a ruling from the Board that its

Compliance Program

 (CP) and Project Completion Schedule

 (PCS),

required by Rules 104(g) (4) and 205(m)(1)(A) to have been filed

 with the Agency on or before February 1,

 1980, were timely filed

on January 28,

 1980.

 Due to

the

apparent inconsistencies noted

in the dates and language of the rules,

 and the proximity of the

date of filing, the Board will rule that

the

CP and CPS were

timely filed.

On March 28,

 1980 the Agency denied the CP and PCS on the

ground that they did not demonstrate compliance with the deadlines

in Rule 205(m) (1)(B) (ii) and

 (iii)

 (initiation and completion,

respectively, of process modification),

 as required by Rule 104(c).

Under Rule 205(j)

 the deadline for compliance with the emission

limitation in Rule 205(n)

 is December 31,

 1982.

 On June 13,

 1980,

the day after its previous operating permit had expired,

Petitioner applied for a new permit.

 On July 9,

 1980 the Agency

denied it for failure

to

submit an adequate CP under Rule 104.

Petitioner seeks

 a three—year variance from Rule 205(j)’s com-

pliance deadline of December 31,

 1982, which would protect

Petitioner from Rule 104(a)’s prohibition of operating its

facility without an approved CP and PCS, and from Rule

205(m)(1)(B)’s process modification initiation and completion

deadlines.

1Ori

September 15,

 1980 the Agency proposed to raise the IAAQS to

the federal level of 0,12 ppm.

 (See the Board’s proceeding R80—11.)

40—66

~

—3—

Petitioner states as its reasons for inability to comply with

the

emission

limitation

 in Rule 205(n)(1)(B)

 basically that the

introduction of LSM into its can manufacturing processes

is

complex and time—consuming.

 Often coatings are submitted to

Petitioner’s customers for further testing and for approval;

disapproval would necessitate refinement of the material,

and

further customer disapproval

 is not unlikely.

 Additionally, many

of Petitioner’s coatings are submitted to the U.

S.

 Food and ~rug

Administration for testing and approval.

 A change in the coating

material can adversely impact the quality of a container’s

contents in many ways.

 Often inventories are scrapped after

production in bulk has begun.

 These circumstances can be

costly as well as time-consuming to Petitioner.

 (See Pet.,pp.

15—17.)

Petitioner’s compliance plan consists of five measures, with

the contingent measure of installing and operating additional

catalytic incinerators by November 1,

 1985 (Pet.,pp.19-25).

One

measure

 is the continued introduction of LSM into Petitioner’s

processes.

 Petitioner estimates that by 1985 at least 96

 of its

operations will use LSM, hut total VOM emissions will he 416,6 lbs.,

 which is greater than the limitation in Rule 205(n)(1)(B)

 of 286,4

tons annually.

 The second measure, continued use of ultraviolet

curable varnishes,

 is a project Petitioner inaugurated in 1974 and

continues to research as the relevant equipment continues to evolve.

A 41-ton reduction projection was given from the continued appli-

cation of these varnishes between 1982

 and. 1985

 (Pet.,p.31).

Petitioner argues that Rule 205(n)(4)’s internal offset

(bubble)

 provision is considerable by the Board as

 a part of its

compliance plan to reduce emissions,

 This is true;

 the purpose of

the offset provision is to allow “the flexibility to overcomply on

the lines where it is possible and to use this overco~lianceas an

offset on the lines where the technology to comply either does not

exist or is very expensive,”

 (See Opinion and Order in R78-3,

-4

dated August 23,

 1979,

 at p.

 22.)

 However, the rule merely states

that if its offset provisions are met, a violation of the limita-

tion in Rule

 205(n)(1)

 by one or more coating lines

 is not an

actionable violation.

 However, the use of the word “credits”

in Rule

 205(n)(4)(C)

is

with

reference

RFP

demonstrations

and

permits

for

new

or

modified

major

sources

locating

non—

attainment

areas.

From

Petitioner’s

fourth

measure,

 transferring

those

pro-

duction

processes

using

 high solvent materials “which

are

less

likely

replaced

with

LSM

in

the

 immediate

future

and

also

significant

portion

 of the

coating

operations

certain

lines

that

are

not

equipped

with

control

equipment,”

Petitioner

projects

205.6—ton

reduction

emissions

(Pet.,p.22—4).

this

transfer which will provide

the

flexibility

the

internal

offset

provision provides.

The last measure is to reschedule

 lines using high solvent

materials for use with the five lines having catalytic incin-

erators.

 No estimation of reductions in VOM emissions was given.

40—67

—4—

Petitioner’s Air Pollution Episode Action Plan provides

 sufficient safeguards during periods of high ozone concentrations

in the Chicago area since it requires the cessation of production

if necessary and a reduction of emissions during other,

 less

critical, stages of alert.

Although Petitioner seeks a grant of variance through

December 31,

 1985, the Agency’s recommendation is through

December 31,

 1984 only.

 The Agency cites the USEPA’s opinion

that although the adoption of low solvent coatings “is,

 in many

cases, technology forcing,

 there

are

 inherent long—term

benefits

 (including

 eliminating the need for abatement equipment

and reducing concommittant

 (sic) energy requirements.”

 The opinion

continues, “lead

 time for

applying

LSM

 already developed

should not exceed two years”

 (see Pet,,Ex,5,Attach.B,p.3).

The

Agency further states that it can find no reason why Petitioner

could not accelerate its compliance schedule by one year,

 citing

that Petitioner’s CP and CPS asserted compliance by 1984.

The Board agrees with the Agency.

 Petitioner’s four meas-

ures were, generally,

 continuing measures for which no specific

completion date could be

 projected.

 Furthermore, there was no

statement in the

 petition for variance that compliance could only

be achieved by 1985;

 there

 were merely statements that compliance

could not be achieved

 by 1982.

 On the other hand, Petitioner~s

facility

 is a multi—product manufacturing plant.

 Petitioner

refers to an intra-USEPA

November

21,

 1978 memorandum on RACT for

can coating operations

 which discusses the

technical

economic

infeasibility of RACT

 on a case-by-case basis and the need for

providing flexibility

 to the emission limitations

 (Pet.,Ex,5,

Attach.D,p.1).

 However,

 it was for precisely this reason that

the Board adopted Rule

 204(n)(4)’s internal offset provision.

Petitioner in effect

 presently

makes

 use of it by drying the high

solvent materials

 in those of

its

lines

equipped

 with incinerators

and applying

 the degree of overcorapliance to other noncomplying

lines.

One of Petitioner’s

 alternative means of complying with Rule

205(j)

 is the costly

and

 energy—consuming installation of catalytic

incinerators.

 Although

 this

viable

 method technologically,

such retrofitting

 is disfavored given

the

expected

 increasing

development of

 LSM-related technology.

 It would furthermore be

economically

 unreasonable to require the use of natural gas to

fuel the

 control equipment not only because of the nonrenewable

nature of the fuel

 but because the Englewood plant’s physical

characteristics

 preclude the use of heat recovery equipment.

Neither

 party here has estimated the extent of

Petitioner’s

contribution to the

 ozone levels in Chicago, however difficult it

might be to separate

 out the effects of motor vehicle emissions.

For this reason, the monitoring data previously cited

rather

unreliable in assessing environmental impact.

 However, the area

contains both commercial and

 industrial, as well as residential,

establishments,

 and therefore

 presumably many motor vehicles and

other sources of VOL.

40—68

—5—

The Board will grant variance from Rule 205(j)

 through

December 31,

 1984 under certain conditions,

 and. will order a

revised schedule for submission to the Agency of the CP

 and. PCS

pursuant to Rule 205(m)(l)(B),

 Grant of variance will not,

 however,

insulate Petitioner from any applicable noncompliance penalties

pursuant to the Clean Air Act pending approval of the variance as

a SIP revision,

This Opinion constitutes

the

findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter,

ORDER

the

Order

 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

 that

American Can Company be granted variance from Rule 205(j)

 through

and including

December

31,

 1984 for VOM emissions from its

 Engle—

wood plant in Chicago upon the following terms and conditions.

1.

 American Can Company shall submit its Compliance Plan

and

 Project

 Completion Schedule

the

Agency

 for approval pursuant

to Rule

 104(c),

 Such documents shall comply with the requirements

of Rules 104 and 205(m)(1)(B)

 in all

respects except as inconsist-

ent with grant of this variance,

 The reporting required pursuant

to Rule 205(m)(1)(B)(i)

 shall

commence

within

 6 months of approval

 of both documents.

 American Can Company

shall continue to initiate

the five measures contained in its compliance plan, and shall

complete all process

modifications allowing the use

of low solvent

coatings by December 31,

 1984.

 American Can Company shall meet

the emission limitations in

Rule 205(n)(1)(B)

 on or

before

December 31,

 1984,

2.

 Beginning on January

1,

 1981 and every third month

thereafter,

 American Can Company shall

 submit written reports

to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency detailing

the

progress made pursuant

its

Compliance

Plan

 and Project Comple-

tion Schedule,

 Said. reports

shall

include information on the

quantity and solvent 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 reasonably requested

by the Agency.

Said

reports

shall

submitted

 to the Agency at

the

following address:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Division of

Air

Pollution

Control

Control Program

Coordinator

2200

 Churchill

 Road

Springfield,

Illinois

 62706.

3.

The

 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is author-

ized to grant American Can Company an operating permit for its

Englewood plant in Chicago which is consistent with this variance

and

with

the

approved

 Compliance Plan and Project Completion

Schedule.

40~-69

—6—

4.

 Within

 45 days of the date of this Order, American Can

Company, by a

 duly authorized

officer,

shall

 execute a Certification

of acceptance

 and agreement to he

bound

 all terms and conditions

this

variance.

 This 45~dayperiod

shall

he

held

abeyance

for

any

period

during

 which

this

Order

 appealed.

Said

Certification

 shall be submitted

to the Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

 the address

Paragraph

this

Order.

The

 form

said

Certification

 shall he as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

 (We,)

___________________________*

 having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 80—169

dated

—

___________,

 understand and

the

Order

and

agree

to

bound

 all of its terms and

conditions.

_______

____

_____

 Petitioner

___

____-~________

____,

 Authorized Agent

 Title

I,

 Christan

L.

 Moffett,

 Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby

cprtify that 1the

above Opinion and Order

ere adopted on the

 ~J7~1

day of

___

 1980 by a vote of

~ri~anL.Mft,Cle~

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

40—70