ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 4, 1975

BEE CHEMICAL COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 75-243

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):

This action comes before the Board on a Petition for

Variance filed by Bee Chemical Company (hereinafter “Bee”) on

June 17, 1975. Bee operates a Hot Stamp Tape Plant in Lansing,

Illinois. This facility manufactures rolls of printed film which

arc used

to decorate home appliances and automobile interior parts.

Variance is sought from Rule 205(f) of Pollution Control Board

Regulations, Chapter 2 until July 26, 1975. An Agency Recommendation

opposed to the Variance request was filed on July 23, 1975. No

hearing has been held.

At Bee’s facility chemical coatings are applied to a polyester

foil substrate. The coated foil is dried in gas fired ovens,

resulting in photochemically reactive emissions. Bee’s petition

includes data for February 24 through May 30, 1975 (Petitioner’s

Exhibit 1). The Agency’s calculations confirm those of Bee’s,

which establish that emission rates for photochemically reactive

material in this time span varied between 26 lbs/hour and

80 lbs/hour. The allowable emission rate under Rule 205(f)

is 8 lbs/hour if there is no odor nuisance. Agency interviews

of nearby residents revealed no complaints of odor nuisance.

Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 discloses that the volume of photochetnicallY

reactive material in the coatings was reduced from 81 percent

in the period February 24 through March 4 to 39 percent in

the period May 19 through May 30. A further reduction to 20 percent

is necessary to be in compliance with Rule 205(f). Bee alleges

that it will achieve such a level by July 26, 1975.

18

— 468

---

—2—

Bee’s initial Operating permit for this facility,

granted on April 5, 1973 (since expired arid not reapplied

for) contained a Compliance Program which anticipat’d compliance

with Rule 205(f) prior to August 1, 1973, and in no case

later than October 1, 1973. Bee alleges that exempt solvents

were unavailable until Spring, 1975 and that since that time

substitution has proved technically more difficult than

expected. The Agency contends that a variance should be

denied since Bee has taken too long to either request a

variance or come into compliance.

The Board recognizes that supplies of exempt solvents

were difficult to obtain until this year, and that substitution

of such solvents can prove technically difficult. On the

basis of the evidence before us we cannot say that it is

unreasonable that Bee was unable to achieve compliance until

July 26, 1975. The Agency has not countered Bee’s argument

that supplies were Thitially unavailable and that, once

available, technical problems ensued. Had the Agency contested

these issues as a factual matter the Board would have required

more evidence in support of them. As it is, however, the

explanations for the delay constitute adequate evidence

supporting a finding of hardship and warranting a grant of

the requested variance. In granting this variance we note

that it is retrospective. Compliance should have been

achieved over one month ago. No additional excessive emissions

will occur as a result of this variance. Bee simply gains

immunity from prosecution for the violation involved for the

period of the variance.

On September 2, 1975, after this Opinion was prepared

for decision, Bee filed an amended variance petition seeking

until November 13, 1975 to use up its inventory of non-

exempt materials. The Agency has not had an opportunity to

respond to this new request. Nor has any information on

ambient air quality been provided which would allow the

Board to consider a variance beyond the July 31, 1975 attainment

date for national ambient air quality standards, pursuant to

the decision of the United States Supreme Court in NRDC v. Train.

For this latest requested relief Bee will have to provide

such information in a new and separate variance petition.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

18

—

469

---

—3—

ORDER

1. Bee Chemical Company is granted a variance from Rule

205(f) of Pollution Control Board Regulations, Chapter

2, for the period July 27, 1974 through July 26, 1975.

2. Bee Chemical Company shall submit to the Agency within

twenty-one (21) days a report stating the date the

conversion to exempt solvents was completed and detailing

the composition and quantity of the exempt solvents.

Such report shall be submitted to: Environmental

Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control,

Control Program Coordinator, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Bo~rd,hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

~

day of September, 1975 by a vote of

_____________________

Illinois Pollution

Board

18

—