ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
31,
1975
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—188
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER CF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This case comes before the Board upon petition of
General Electric Company
(G.E.)
for variance from the
limitations
of P~le205(f)
as specified
in the Air Pollution
Control Regulations
(Air Regulations)
as
it applies
to their
installation
located
in Danville,
Illinois.
The operatitn for which the variance
is sought
is an
electro—static painting facility used to apply a baking
enamel to carbon steel enclosures for ballast transformers.
The plant’s total process involves the manufacture of power
supplies and light Thtensity controls for high intensity,
fluorescent and numerous other types of gaseous discharge
lamps.
These devices for ballast are used for industrial
and commercial general
lighting,
area lighting and home
lighting.
The history of this petition for variance starts with
a
permit application by G.E.
in July of 1973.
According to
the record,
a permit was issued by the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Z~gency (Agency)
in August of 1973 to run
until April of l974~ in consideration of a compliance sched-
ule which indicated that G.E. would solve their solvent
operation by employrrent of complying non-photochemically
reactive solvents.
In December of
1973,
G.E. submitted a
new application
for operating permit
to cover its solvent
operation which stated that G.E. had abandoned its previ-
ously articulates compliance plan and,
instead, expected
to
reduce its paint usage to 5,000 gallons or less per year by
use of prepainte’.i material.
G.E.
felt that this action
would bring it into compliance with Rule 103(i) (7) which
states that no permit
is required for “painting operations
using not in excess of 5,000 gallons of paint
(including
thinner).”
In addition,
G.E. presumed that this action
would bring them into compliance with Rule 205(f) (2) (D)
which provides for an exemption for anyone whose compliance
program provides
for the reduction of organic material used
in processes
to 20
or less of total volume by May 30,
1975.
This new permit application was denied by the Agency stating
that Rule 205(f) (2) (D)
essentially envisioned
a changeover
18— 218
—2—
to aqueous base paints.
At that time G.E.
filed the instant
variance petitioii.
The Agency and G.E.,
in a long series of petitions,
amended petitionr,
recommendations,
amended recommendations
and letters,
argue at length concerning G.E.’s interpre-
tation of the 80
reduction rule and its application to
G.E. ‘s process and whether G.E.
had. indeed shown good faith
in their attempt to
come into compliance with the Board’s
regulations.
NotwL:hstanding all of these arguments,
the
record shows that G.E.,
for whatever reason,
economic or
environmental, has since 1970 continuously reduced their
usage of photocheinically reactive solvents so that by March
3,
1975,
the Danville plant has eliminated all photochem’-
ically reactive
3olvents from its processes.
Said elim-
ination was achieved by transferring some production
to
other facilities whose processes do not require solvents;
by
using some prepaLnted material;
and by shifting to non-
photochemically reactive solvents.
The Board finds that although there were some missteps
and delays in the ci~mplianceprogram of G.E.
due apparently
to misunderstandinç~and a temporary termination of the
operation at Danvilie,
G.E.
has pursued compliance with the
Board’s regulations
in good faith.
The Board also finds
that G.E.
has ca:~riedits burden of proof concerning unrea-
sonable hardship as
it pertains
to this variance petition.
The record indicafes that G.E.
experienced problems
in 1974
with regard to availability of the exempt solvents.
The
Board notes that the availability problem with regard to
exempt solvents during 1974 has been presented before in
numerous other case~.
The hardship involved in shutting
down a line due
to unavailability of complying solvents and
the attendant loss of trained people and product market is
suitably presented in the record.
The Agency,
in
its final letter of May 15,
1975, cor-
rectly notes that G.E.’s request
for a variance from January
1,
1974 to March
3,
1975 cannot be granted since the starting
date of January
1.
1974 was first proposed in G.E.’s April
1,
1975 brief suboequent
to the hearing and cannot therefore
be considered
an amendment to their petition for variance.
The Board will thus grant
a variance to G.E.
for their
Danville operation from Rule 205(f) of the Air Regulations
from May 21, 1974 to January
1,
1975 as requested by G.E.
in
its petition for variance dated May 21,
1974.
This Opinion ccnstitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Pollution Control Board.
18
—
219
—3—
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
variance from tfe limitations of Rule 205(f)
of the Illinois
Air Pollution C~ntrolRegulations be granted to the General
Electric Company at their Danville,
Illinois, plant for the
period May 21,
1974
to January
1,
1975.
I, Christan L~Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, her~I’ycertify the above Opi ion and Order
were adop~edon
tne
________
day of
________,
1975 by
a
vote of
~-(‘~
Christan
L. Moffe~tt~/C~k
Illinois Pollution
dc
~tol Board
18
—
220