ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20, 1973
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANy.
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 73—387
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Joseph Wright, Jr., Attorney, on behalf of Petitioner.
George Wolff and James Rubin, Assistant Attorneys General on
behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman)
On September 6, 1973, Petitioner, Continental Can Company,
Inc., filed its Petition for Variance seeking variance from
Pollution Control Board Regulations, Chapter 2, Rules 103(b)
(2), 103(h) (6) (B), 104 and 205(f). A hearing was held in this
matter on November 27, 1973.
Petitioner owns and operates, through its White Cap Division,
a facility located at 1819 North Major Avenue, Chicago, County of
Cook, Illinois. Said facility manufactures metal closures for
glass containers. As an integral part of that activity, Petitioner
maintains a lithography operation within the facility, which opera--
tion is the subject of its Petition.
The subject lithography operation consists of thirteen
ovens, each emitting an average of 49.5 pounds per hour of
organic material, which organic material is ‘tphoto-chemically
reactiven as that phrase is defined by Pollution Control Board
Rule 201. Petitioner has undertaken the installation of three
incineration devices designed to bring the emission of organic
material within the limits established by Pollution Control Board
Rule 205(f). However, Rule 205(f) becomes effective on January 1,
1974.
Petitioner alleges that, through no fault or delay attri-
butable to Petitioner, the installation of the three incineration
devices cannot be completed until June 30, 1974. Petitioner,
therefore, seeks a variance from Rule 205(f) until that date,
alleging that the delay in installation was due to Petitionert s
inability to acquire firm commitments for the fuel necessary
to operate the incineration devices.
10
--435
—2—
Because Petitioner cannot complete control of said
organic emissions on or before the effective date of the limita-
tions of Pollution Control Board Rule 205(f) as said date
is established by PCB Rule 205(J) (2), Petitioner is unable to
supply Compliance Programs and Project Completion Schedules
conforming to PCB Rule 104 (C) (2) and, lacking said Compliance
Programs and Project Completion Schedules, Petitioner is
unable to obtain an Operating Permit pursuant to the require-
ments of PCB Rule 103 (b) (6) (B)
Petitioner alleges that the fuel (natural gas) is presently
available; however, the delay in obtaining the allocation,
from May of 1972 until June of 1973, has allegedly caused ~imilar
delays in Petitioner’s construction program (R.2).
Petitioner notes for our consideration that upon the adoption
of Rule 205 (f)
,
Petitioner had the option of converting its
operation to the use of water-base paints. If Petitioner had
elected to pursue said option, it would not be required to
comply with the limits of Rule 205(f) until May 30, 1974 (R.71).
Petitioner argues that it would have been a good deal less
expensive to substitute water-base coatings than to install and
operate incineration devices (R.7l). However, Petitioner’s witness
Mr. James H. Lewis, plant manager, testified that Petitioner elected
to install rather expensive thermal oxidation units as opposed
to changing to water—base coatings because of the uncertainties
involved in the use of heavily pigmented coatings (R.13).
The Agency position on this matter is that Petitioner should
have completed construction and installation of the proposed
equipment prior to the effective date of Rule 205(f) (January 1, 1974),
and then wait until the requisite allocation of natural gas could
be obtained, if said allocation had not been obtained (luring the
construction and installation period.
On this point, Petitioner’s witness, Mr. James H. Lewis,
testified that installation and subsequent non-use of the proposed
equipment for any extended period of time would result in con-
tamination or possible damage to the said equipment due to
condensation (R.2l)
.
This testimony was not rebutted by the Agency.
In order to provide gas to the proposed equipment, it is
necessary that Petitioner convert its entire facility from low
pressure to medium pressure gas lines. It is also necessary for
Petitioner’s supplier to extend new, medium pressure lines to
Petitioner’s facility. Petitioner’s supplier, Peoples Gas, Light
and Coke Company, has experienced difficulty in obtaining easements
for its extension to Petitioner’s facility
and the final
easement was not obtained until NoveP~ber23, ~973 (R.59).
10
—
436
—3—
Petitioner estimates the cost of construction and installation
of the proposed equipment to be $600,000 (R.l7)
.
Petitioner
states that 174 persons are directly employed in the subject
lithography operation and the employment of an additional 919
employees is indirectly dependent upon the continued operation
of said lithography operation.
We are disposed to grant Petitioner’s request for variance;
however, variance from Rule 205(f) shall be granted only until
March 1, 1974.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner,
Continental Can Company, Inc., shall be granted a variance from
Rule 205(f) of the Rules and Regulations of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board until March 1, 1q74.
Mr. Henss dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, certify that the aboye Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
__________
day of
~
—,
1974 by a
vote of
____________
10 —437