ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 29,
1976
ARVEY CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—226
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE
BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on an Amended Petition
for Variance by Arvey Corporation, located at 3500 North Kimball
Avenue,
Chicago,
Illinois.
Relief
is requested from Rule 205(f)
of the Board’s Air Rules pertaining to the emission of photochemically
reactive materials.
Petitioner utilizes solvents and castings
in
its laminating process.
Some of these solvents and coatings
cause emissions of organic material which exceed the
8 pound per
hour limit of Rule 205(f).
The proposed compliance program is the
reformulation of solvents containing toluol to “exempt” solvents.
Petitioner’s use of the term “exempt solvent”
is confusing.
The term “exempt” would normally refer to solvents containing
less than
5
alcohols and/or hetones, or as otherwise provided
for in the definition of Photochemically Reactive Material in
Air Rule 201.
However, no evidence is given to warrant such an
exemption.
“Exemption”
could also apply to Air Rule 205(f) (2) (D).
However, no evidence is given to show that petitioner’s reformulations
would reduce the percentage of organic material used to 20
or
less of the total volume.
The only other way for petitioner to come into compliance with
Air Rule 205(f) would be to reduce its discharges of organic
material to
8 pounds per hour or less.
Again, Petitioner has
not shown that such reduction would result from its present and
planned reformulations.
Each of the eight laminating machines
now emit 39~.375lbs/hr. of photochemically reactive solvents.
19—783
—2—
Petitioner has failed to present facts necessary for the Board
to determine whether the use of reformulations would ultimately
result in compliance with the Air Rules.
Without such evidence, no
variance will be granted.
Further, petitioner admits, on page
4 of its Amended Petition,
that it has not looked into the installation of control devides
for individual emission sources.
Past studies “were on an overall
basis.”
Therefore, petitioner has failed to show either that reformula-
tion would result in compliance or that the installation of control
devices would work an unreasonable hardship.
Petitioner also
fails to provide alternate compliance programs in case the reformula—
tions are later found to be unacceptable.
The Board must therefore dismiss the instant petition.
Due
to the above stated inadequacies it has not been necessary to discuss
the ambient air quality effects which might result from these emissions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Arvey Corporation’s Amended Petition for Variance is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Boar~, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
Q9”~
day of January,
1976 by a vote of
~
Christan L.
offe
ler
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
19—
764