ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

6, 1975

ABITIBI CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—207

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

Petitioner Abitibi Corporation,

(Abitibi),

filed its

original Petition for Variance in this matter on May

19,

1975,

seeking relief until June 30,

1975,

from the requirements of

Rule 205(f)

of Chapter

2: Air Pollution, of the Pollution

Control Board,

(Board), Rules and Regulations.

PCB Regs.

Ch.

2,

Rule 205(f).

In an Amended Petition filed on June 30,

1975, Abitibi additionally requested relief from Rules

205(f)

and 103(b) (2)

from June 30,

1975 until December

31,

1975.

On July

10,

1975,

the Board entered an Interim Order

requiring further information from Petitioner addressing the

issues raised in the United States Supreme Court case of

Train v. NRDC,

43 U.S.L.W.

4467

(U.S., April 16,

1975).

After filing a waiver of the 90—day statutory decision

period on August

7,

1975,

Abitibi filed additional information,

in compliance with our July 10,

1975 Interim Order, on

August 20,

1975.

An Agency Recommendation addressing Abitibi’s original

Variance Petition was filed on June

25,

1975.

An Amended

Recommendation was received from the Agency on October

8,

1975.

A hearing was held

in this matter on October

8, 1975, where

the parties entered by Stipulation the stenographic record

of an informal hearing on the same issues, held by the U.

S.

Environmental Protection Agency on August 28,

1975.

That

record was filed on October

9,

1975.

Abitibi operates a plant on the south side of Chicago,

at which it employs approximately 100 people in the manufacture

of woodgrain and other tile board paneling.

At that plant

Abitibi applies coating to wood-fiber hardboard to produce

the finished paneling product.

The process consists of:

19— 232

---

—2—

1.

application of a prime or fill coat,

(“the white coat,”

R.

28), which is applied in

a roller—coater process, after which the board

is baked

in an inf~-redelectric oven to dry

the primer coat;

2.

After

a 24-hour curing period,

the

board is again

sanded,

the board is sprayed

and a basic ground coat is applied to give

color, after which

the board again goes through

an infra—red electric oven;

3.

After being printed,

the board is

then given

a top varnish coat, after which

it is passed through a gas-fired,

infra-red

oven for the final curing process,

(R.

31).

Total hydrocarbon emissions from these various processes

average approximately 315 pounds per hour.

Although not all

of the hydrocarbons emitted are photochemically reactive, the

parties agreed that emissions from Abitibi’s Chicago plant

significantly exceed the allowable limit under Rule 205(f)

of

eight pounds per hour.

Although the record here does not

indicate when it was issued, Abitibi procured an operating

permit from the Agency for its Chicago plant, which will not

expire until April

4,

1978.

As

a condition of that permit,

Abitibi was to have followed a compliance program designed

to achieve compliance with Rule 205(f) by Nay

30,

1975.

That compliance plan was based on a conversion to water—base

coatings for use in its hardboard coating operation.

At the time of its initial Variance Petition, Abitibi

stated that it would be unable to achieve compliance by the

May

30,

1975 date.

Abitibi stated that its water-base coating

compliance plan would not work,

despite a long—term extensive

development and research program, without additional capital

expenditure for increased drying capacity.

Abitibi concluded

that a new drying oven would be needed for the base coating

system,

and that such oven would not be available for use until

the end of 1975.

(The record fully supports the extent of the

efforts undertaken by Abitibi to achieve compliance without

this additional capital expenditure.)

At the time of the

initial Variance Petition, Abitibi projected the use of exempt

solvents from June 30,

1975 until December 31,

1975,

so that

only a one—month Variance would be needed.

41

•$~‘1

---

—3—

However, Abitibi thereafter discovered that no exempt

solvents were suitable for use in its manufacturing process;

various quality control problems prohibited the use of such

exempt coatings without the additional drying capacity of the

new oven.

Abitibi therefore requested that its Variance from

205(f)

extend from May

31,

1975 to December

31, 1975.

Addition-

ally,

apparently as the result of statements from the Agency’s

first Recommendation filed June 25,

1975, Abitibi also requested

a Variance from Rule 103 (b) (2), concerning the validity of its

operating permit.

The record is clear on the extent of Abitibi’s good faith

attempts to achieve compliance with Rule 205(f)

by May

30,

1975.

At considerable expense, Abitibi, with the cooperation of its

suppliers, developed and tested a considerable number of coatings

formulations designed for compliance with that rule,

and tested

those formulations under both laboratory and production conditions.

In some cases,

the tests involved the processing of thousands of

panel units through Abitibi’s production facilities; because

these tests have been unsuccessful, and the resulting paneling

products did not meet quality control standards, Abitibi’s

expense in these tests was considerable.

After it became

apparent that these attempts would not be successful, Abitibi

committed itself to considerable capital expenditure

in a further

attempt to achieve compliance,

(R.

47).

The new oven for use

with the primer coat line will cost approximately $65,000.00.

In the additional information filed pursuant to our July 10,

1975 Order, addressing the Train case,

supra., Abitibi again

modified its request for Variance.

Apparently based on this

Board’s previous interpretations of the Train case,

and on data

concerning ozone levels

in Chicago during the summer months,

Abitibi limited its request for Variance to the period between

Board action on this case and December

31,

1975,

(additional

information,

filed August 20,

1975,

at 3).

Abitibi noted that

the Board would not be acting on its Variance request until at

least mid-S~ptember, 1975,

and that the Variance would not be

effective during a period when ozone concentrations in excess

of national Ambient Air Quality Standards have historically

been encountered.

Abitibi further stated that,

since compliance

with Rule 205(f) will be attained by December

31,

1975, emissions

from the Abitibi plant will not contribute to future ozone

episodes,

(id.).

We agree with Petitioner that the Train case does not bar

the grant of a Variance in this instance.

High concentrations

of ambient ozone are directly related to solar radiation, and

the highest levels of ozone occur in Illinois during the months

of July, August and September, when solar energy is the most

intense and daylight hours are the longest.

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

1974 Annual Air Quality Report,

147

(September,

1975).

In fact,

in its Annual Report, the Agency

only reports ozone levels for the Chicago area for those months.

19

—

---

—4—

While there can be no question that violations of the 0.08

ppm standard for ozone do occur during July, August and

September, such violations do not occur during winter months,

when sufficient sunlight to trigger the ozone-producing

reactions is not available.

This Board has previously

stated as its interpretation of the Train case the requirement

that any Variance will not allow the source in question to

cause or contribute to a violation of the national Ambient

Air Quality Standard.

During the months of November and

December, which will be the effective months of the instant

Variance, such violations do not occur for the photochemical

oxidant standard.

It is therefore evident that, during the

period of the Variance requested here,

Abitibi will not

cause or contribute to any such violation.

Thus, we are not

precluded from granting this Variance

and approving Abitibi’s

compliance plan under the Train case, despite violations of

the Ambient Air Quality Standard for photochemical oxidants

during the summer months.

See, King-Seeley

v.

EPA, PCB 75-

159

(April

24,

1975)

(Interim Order); Great Lakes Carbon v.

EPA,

PCB 75—85

(May 22,

1975).

In both its initial and Amended Recommendation,

the

Agency asks that the Board deny any Variance from Rule

103(b) (2), concerning operating permits.

The Agency’s

contention that such a Variance is not needed where a substantive

Variance has been granted is in keeping with prior Board

decisions,

and is accepted here.

In addition, the Agency

requests that this Variance be conditioned on a requirement

that Abitibi reapply for all necessary construction and

operating permits, despite the fact that the previously

issued operating permit,

(discussed above), will not expire

until April

4,

1978.

The Agency claims that the previously

issued permit was obtained by Abitibi on the basis of its

previous compliance plan, and that it should be required to

reapply for a new permit, incorporating the compliance plan

which we are approving here.

We agree.

The compliance plan

approved by the Board here constitutes a significant departure

from that contemplated by the Agency when the original

permit was issued,

in terms of both mode of compliance and

compliance target date.

In light of Abitibi’s previous good faith attempt to

achieve compliance, we feel that a performance bond of

$10,000.00 will serve

to assure the completion of the

compliance program envisioned here.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

---

—5—

ORDER

IT

IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:

1.

Petitioner Abitibi Corporation is granted

a Variance from Rule 205(f) of Chapter

2: Air

Pollution,

of the Pollution Control Board Rules

and Regulations, for its Chicago plant,

from the

date of this Order until December 31,

1975,

subject

to the following conditions:

A.

Within thirty

(30) days of

the date of this Order, Petitioner

shall post a performance bond in a

form acceptable to the Environmental

Protection Agency,

in the amount of

Ten Thousand Dollars

($10,000.00),

to be posted with the:

Environmental Protection Agency

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

B.

Within thirty

(30) days of the

date of this Order, Petitioner shall

re-apply to the Illinois Environmental

Potection Agency for all applicable

construction and operating permits

for its Chicago plant.

C.

On the 10th day of November,

1975,

December,

1975,

and January, 1976,

Petitioner shall submit to the

Environmental Protection Agency at

the address given above

a written

report detailing its progress towards

compliance with Rule 205(f)

under

the compliance plan approved herein.

D.

Within thirty

(30) days of

the date of this Order, Petitioner

shall execute and forward to the

Environmental Protection Agency

at the address specified above,

a certification of acceptance in

the following form:

19—

236

---

—6—

I,

(We), ________________________having

read the Order of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board in Case No. PCB 75-207, under-

stand and accept said Order,

realizing that

such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

2.

That portion of the Variance Petition

and Amended Petition seeking

a Variance from

Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2: Air Pollution, of

the Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations,

and those portions of the Petition and Amended

Petition seeking Variance from Rule 205(f)

from

May 30, 1975,

to the date of this Order, are

dismissed.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

_____

day of

/

~

1975 by a vote of

4/..p

Christan L. Mof

Clerk

Illinois Polluti

Control Board