ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 3, 1992
    OLIN CORPORATION,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—172
    )
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. Nardulli):
    This matter is before the Board on the November 23, 1992
    motion to dismiss filed by respondent Illinois Environmetnal
    Protection Agency (Agency). On November 30, 1992, petitioner Olin
    Corporation (Olin) filed its response objecting to dismissal.
    Respondent seeks dismissal of this variance on the basis that the
    petition fails to set forth an adequate compliance plan as required
    by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.121(f).
    On November 5, 1992, Olin filed a variance petition seeking
    temporary relief from the volatile organic materials (VOM)
    emissions limits set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.204(j). Olin’s
    Winchester Division manufactures small arms ammunition, ammunition
    components, and explosives. Nitrocellulose lacquers are used in
    the manufacturing process and VOMs are emitted as the lacquers dry.
    Olin asserts that it is currently unable to comply with Section
    219.204(j) and has been unable to locate compliant materials which
    meet required performance criteria, including military
    specifications.
    Section 104.121(f) requires that a variance petition include
    a “detailed description of the existing and proposed equipment or
    proposed method of control to be undertaken to achieve full
    compliance with the Act and regulations, including a time schedule
    for the implementation of all phases of the control program
    ....“
    Respondent contends that Olin’s variance petition should be
    dismissed because it does not include a compliance plan which is
    specific enough to be considered a compliance schedule.
    Olin’s petition sets forth a two—phase compliance program.
    (Pet. at 27; Pet. Exh. 19.) In the first phase, Olin will
    investigate reformulations of the lacquers. Olin states that it ~
    currently investigating water—based lacquers and shorter-chain
    nitrocellulose formulations. Olin anticipates that development,
    testing, and implementation of lacquer reformulations for
    ammunition will take approximately five years, for power load tools
    approximately two to three years. Both reforinulations would
    require military specification approval. Olin also estimates the
    costs of reformulation to be between $300,000 to $500,000.
    0137-0573
    2
    If reformulation proves technically or economically
    infeasible, Olin will proceed to investigate capture and control
    technology. Olin has begun a preliminary investigation in this
    technology and, in the event that it proves to be economically
    infeasible, Olin may seek an adjusted standard.
    Exhibit 19 attached to Olin’s petition sets forth a time
    schedule for each phase of compliance. Olin states that this
    schedule is reasonably anticipated to achieve compliance within
    five years. In summary, Olin states that “(i)f a reformulated
    lacquer ‘fails’ a performance test, other reformulations are
    unavailable, and an adjusted standard has not been granted, Olin
    will then proceed to in depth evaluation of the design
    implementation of capture and control devices.”
    Because a variance is a temporary reprieve from compliance,
    petitioner must commit to a plan reasonably calculated to achieve
    compliance within the term of the variance. (Monsanto Co. v. PCB
    (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 276, 376 NE.2d 684; Olin Corp. v. IEPA (Feb. 7,
    1991), PCB 89-72 at 5.) The Board finds that Olin’s petition sets
    forth a sufficient compliance plan which is reasonably calculated
    to achieve compliance within the five—year term requested.
    Furthermore, the Board agrees with the Agency’s assertion that a
    petition for adjusted standard does not in and of itself constitute
    an adequate compliance plan. However, Olin mentions an adjusted
    standard as one possible method of compliance and does not rely
    solely on such relief for achieving compliance. Consequently, the
    Board finds that reference to a future adjusted standard does not
    render Olin’s compliance plan inadequate.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Board denies respondent’s
    motion to dismiss. In its motion, respondent asks that, if its
    motion to dismiss is denied, it be given an additional 30 days in
    which to file its recommendation. On December 3, 1992, Olin filed
    a waiver of the Board’s decision deadline and agreed to the
    Agency’s request for a 30 day extension of time. Therefore,
    respondent is hereby granted a 30 day extension of time to file its
    recommendation.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boar4, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~.L-
    day of
    ~/~ -
    ,
    1992 by a vote of
    —7
    /—C~.
    -
    Dorothy N.~ Gu~fl,Clerk
    Illinois PoL1~kition Control Board
    0137
    -057I~

    Back to top