ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 21,
1974
)
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
)
)
)
v.
)
PCB 7~-559
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
MS. SARA L.
JAVAHERIAN,
appeared on behalf of International
Harvester
MICHAEL GINSBERG,
appeared on behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
International Harvester filed
a Petition for Variance from
Rule 205(f)
of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Air Regulations)
on December 26,
1973.
On February 8,
1974 the Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed
a Motion to Dismiss
the Variance
Petition.
International Harvester filed
a Response
to the
Agency’s Motion
to Dismiss on February
26,
1974.
The Board on
February 28, 1974 denied the Agency’s Motion
to Dismiss.
The
Agency filed
a Recommendation to grant the variance for a six
month period on March
12,
1974.
No hearing was held.
International Harvester operates
a farm equipment manufactuTing
plant located in Canton, Fulton County,
Illinois.
International
Harvester uses 102,000 gallons of paint
and 30,000 gallons of
solvent per year which produce an emission of 172.7 lbs. per
hour of photochemically reactive organic material.
Rule
205(f)
of the Air Regulations
limits organic emissions
to
8 lbs. per hour with two exceptions.
The first exception is
the use of a control device such as
an incinerator, vapor recovery
system,
or other approved control device to achieve
an 85
reduc-
tion over the uncontrolled emissions by December 31,
1973 (Rule 205
(f)(l)).
The second exception
is
to reduce the
absolute volume
of total organic material used in the manufacturing process
to
20
or less of total volume by May 30,
1975
(Rule
205(f) (2) (D)).
A further exception applies
to
the emission limit
“if no odor
nuisance problem exist in the limitation.
.
.
shall
apply only to
photochemically reactive material” (Rule 205(f)).
This exception
11
—635
-2-
has been the subject of numerous variance petitions and is
the
subject of this request by International Harvester.
International
Harvester
as well
as many other manufacturers
and users, was
able
to file
a compliance program and obtain an operating permit because
they proposed switching to
the use of non-photochemically solvents
and thus meeting the substituting standard of
8
lbs. per hour
of “photochemically reactive1’ organic material by December 31,
1973.
Internati~onalHarvester by its o~nadmission emits
172.7
lbs. per hour of photochemically reactive organic material which
is approximately 21.5 times
the allowable rate of
8 lbs. per
hour under Rule 205(f)
of the Air Regulations.
International
Harvester alleges
that because of numerous reasons such as
the
difficulty of testing and approving
newly
formulated paints,
rejecting of newly formulated paints for failure to meet production
requirements, objectional odors to plant workers, delay in delivery
of newly formulated paints
from paint manufacturers,
an 18-day
strike In October,
1973,
and the shortage of solvents within the
petrochemical industry,
that they were not able
to
meet the December 31, 1973 deadline.
International Harvester
alleges that by February 11,
1974 they had switched to the use
of 100
non-photochemically solvents and 80.4
non-photochemically
reactive paint.
International Harvester further alleges
that
by May
1,
1974 it shall have in use
83.5
non-photochemically
paints.
International Harvester seeks
a variance until December 31,
1974 to permit
it to implement
its project completion schedule
for conversion to exempt materials and to search for other sources
of supply to enable
it
to achieve 100
compliance with Rule 205(f)
of the Air Regulations.
The Board agrees with the Agency in that it
is reasonable
to require petitioners
to investigate feasible control alternatives,
notwithstanding the language of Pol:Lution Control Board Regulation,
Chapter
1 Part
4,
Rule 401(a).
The Board specifically rejects
International Harvester’s contention that
it would “be unreasonable
to require petitioner to explore
the Rule
205(f)
alternatives
within the confines
of the variance petition since the Agency has
approved
a compliance program based on exempt solvents” (Int~rna-
tional Harvester’s response to Agency’s Motion
to Dismiss
filed
February 26,
1974).
Agency approval
of compliance programs which
anticipated compliance with Rule 205(f) by utilizing non-photo-
chemically solvents does not grant petitioners
an un-ending
variance for so long as
the shortage of non-photochemically reactive
solvents exists
in the petrochemical industry.
Petitioners should
present evidence that they will be able to obtain non-photochemically
reactive solvents
in the near future.
If they cannot demonstrate
this,
then Petitioners should explore
the
two alternatives under
Rule 205(f)
of the Air Regulations discussed above.
While the
effective date for switching to non-photochemically reactive sol-
vents was December 31,
1973,
the effective date for switching to
11
—636
-3-
water based paint according to Rule
205(f) (2) (D)
is May 30,
1975.
Therefore an acceptable compliance plan and project completion
schedule for conversion to water based paint would not offend
Board Regulations.
The Board finds that International Harvester has proceeded
in good faith to achieve compliance with Rule 205(f)
and that
a short-term variance from this Rule would not,
in this circum-
stance,
cause significant public injury because International Har-
vester
is in substantial compliance.
However,
International Har-
vester should submit the following information if they petition
for an extension of
this variance:
1)
Environmental impact of their emissions,
including the
amount and type
of emissions.
2)
Impact of
the mandatory allocation order on their ability
or inability to obtain non-photochemically reactive solvents
(Fed.
Reg.,
1/15/74, Vol.
39,
No.
10, Part III, Part 2llJ.
3.
Projected compliance date or date of availability of non-
photochemically reactive solvents.
4.
Information on applicability of reducing the total
organic
emission by
85
(Rule
205(f)(l-5)).
5.
Information on the potential sh~ftin~
to non-organic
solvents,
i.e., water,
to reduce
the total volume of organic
materials used
(Rule 205(f) (2) (D)).
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusion’s of law.
ORDER
International Harvester is hereby granted
a variance from
Rule
205(f)
of the Air Regulations for the period of time from
January
1,
1974 ‘~intilD~ecember 31, 1974 subject to the following
conditions:
1.
International Harvester shall continue research and testing
to formulate acceptable paint mixtures.
Results of such
research shall be forwarded to
the Division of Air Pollution
Control, Illinois Environmental.Protection Agency,
200 West
Washington Street,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
2.
International Harvester shall convert to the use of non-
photochemically reactive solvents, should such solvents become
available during the term of the variance.
1~—6~T’
-4-
3.
As much non-reactive solvents
as are available shall be
used in preference
to reactive solvents.
4.
A new compliance plan shall be filed with the Agency prior
to September 21, 1974
IT
IS SO
ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Boai~d,hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
~
day of March,
1974 by
a vote of
___________________________
Christan L. Moffett, Cl~
-
Illinois Pollution Control Board