ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

30,

1~’7~3

BORG

WAi~NER

CORPORATION,

INGERSOLL

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—307

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This

matter

comes

before the Illinois Pollution Control

toaru

(Board)

upon the August

1,

1975,

petition of Borg

Warner

Corporation

(Borg)

for six month variance from Rules

203(a)

(2)

and

103

(a)

(5) (B)

of the

Air

Pollution Regulations

as

theL’

apply

to its Ingersoll Products Division in Chicago,

Illinois,

From the

contents of the petition,

it

is apparent

that

Borg

is

seeking variance from the operating permit

requirements

of 103(b)

rather

than

the

construction

permit

requirements

of

103(a).

Tie

portion

of the

Ingersoll Productions Division for

whici the

variance

is

sought is the electrostatic paint

booth

and

paint drying oven used in manufacturing electronic

cabinets.

Steel sheets are cleaned,

cut, formed and welded

into

equipment

panels.

After grinding

rough

edges and

removing

all

scale,

the cabinets are painted in the spray

boots

and

cured

in the

drying

oven.

Approximately

1200

different

colors and

25 basic formulas are used.

Petitioner

contends

that

its

paints and solvents comply with Rule

205(f)

of the Air Pollution Regulations.

On

March

16,

1975,

Petitioner applied

to the

Environ-

mental

Protection

Agency

(Agency)

for

an

operating permit.

On May

2,

1975,

the Agency requested a complete list of the

chemical

names

of

each

solvent

used

in

the

paints

at

Ingersoll

Products.

Borg

was

given

until May 28,

1975,

to

obtain

and

submit

the

information

to

Agency.

Borg

answered

the

Agency

request,

stating that

all paints were in compliance with

Ru:Le

205(f)

and later

requested more

titne to obtain the

caumical

names.

The permit was denied for incomplete

information

on June

5,

1975.

Petitioner

now seeks

a

variance from Rule 103(b)

for

~n

::~onths from

August

1,

1975,

in

order

to

obtain

the

necessary

information

from

its

solvent suppliers.

do~c~

s-Lures

that

the

requested

information

has

placed

a

~arge

curaen on its

techn~ca1

stat

t

an~that

denial

would

---

cause the shutting

down of the facility resulting

in the

loss

of-

$6,000,000 per year and the unemployment of

88

persons.

The

Board

points out that the denial of a variance

is

not

a

shut

down

order.

Mobil Oil

v. EPA PCB 73-562, ABC

Great Lakes,

Inc.

V.

EPA PCB 72-39, Forty-eight Insulations,

Inc.

v. EPA PCB

73—478.

While

twenty-six days may not have been sufficient time

within which to

obtain the necessary information,

surely the

three months

between the Agency request and the filing of

this petition

should

have

been

adequate.

The

Board

cannot

say

that

the

information

requested

by

the Agency

is

arbi-

trary or

unreasonable.

While Borg has obviously acted in

qood faith

in using

solvents which

they feel comply with

Rule 205(f),

it

has failed to show the necessary hardship

which would

warrant

a variance.

Therefore, Borg~spetition

will he

dismissed

without

prejudice.

This Opinion

constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law

ORDER

It is

the

Order

of

the Board that Borg Warner Corpor—

ation~s

petition

for variance from Rule 103(b)

of the Air

Re relations of its

Ingersoll Products Division be, and

hereby

is,

dismissed

without

prejudice.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinior~

and Order were

adop~ed

on

the

~

day of

~

1975 by a vote of

‘4—o

1,

Christan

L.

Moff~Li~JClerk