ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
3,
1981
GTE AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—225
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition filed by
GTE Automatic Electric,
Inc.
(GTE) December
10,
1980,
as amended
January
28, March 23, and June 19,
1981,
from Rules 103,
205(j)
and 205(k)(3) of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution.
The Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency) has recommended denial
of variance
in its Recommendation of May
8,
1981,
as amended July
24,
1981,
although certain variance conditions were suggested in the alter-
native.
GTE filed a Response on August
3,
1981.
No hearing was
held in this matter, as the early hearing requests made by both
GTE and the Agency have recently been withdrawn
(Am.
Pet. June L~,
1981,
Am. Rec. July
24, 1981).
At its manufacturing facility in Northlake,
Cook County,
GTE
designs,
fabricates and assembles electromechanical and electronic
telephone switching systems.
The metal parts involved in the
final systems’ assembly are either vapor degreased to remove
soi.1,
oil, and grease
in preparation for surface etching, or vapor
defluxed as part of post operative process involving soldering
and removal
of solder flux residues.
GTE’s degreaser units cmplo’
either trichloroethylene, perchiorethylene, or fluorocarbon as ~)~e
cleaning solvent, while the defluxers employ fluorocarbon only.
Rules
205(j) and
(k)(3) require that,
effective July
1,
1980,
that specified control equipment be installed and operational on
open top degreasers and defluxers
to prevent the escape of solvent
vapors into the atmosphere.
GTE seeks variance from the complian-~
deadline for
a)
7 open top degreasers which were in various sgos
of retrofitting, to be completed by June 15,
1981,
b)
7 open top
degreasers, permanently shut down by May 31,
1981 c)
2 conveyori~1
degreasers also retrofitted by May
31,
1981,
and d)
4
conveyorizei
defluxers retrofitted by July
20,
1981
(one of which was
.iemoved
from service June 26, 1981).*
*GTE asserts that two of these units are exempt from Rule
205(k) because of their
small
size,
but are retrofitting them anyway.
43—27 1
2
The overall cost of this retrofit is estimated at $64,300.
In short,
compliance has been achieved during the lengthy pendency
of this action, and the Board must determine whether variance
relief should be granted to protect GTE from possible enforcement
actions resulting from its year—long period of non—compliance.
GTE explains that the delay in compliance is attributable
to
adverse,
“general economic conditions” occurring in early 1980.
Resulting decline in demand for GTE products caused it
to sub-
stantially reduce production, and also to reduce its engineering
staff.
As reduction in its production level caused removal of
seven degreasers from service, and reduced operation of its other
open—top degreasers
(1 shift only) and conveyorized machines
(2 shifts maximum),
GTE states that its total emissions have
necessarily been reduced throughout 1980, even before completion
of its retrofit efforts.
GTE therefore believes that grant of
variance will not harm the public.
GTE also alleges that full
compliance during the last year could have been achieved only by
a
full shut—down of its degreasers and defluxers, which would have
closed down the Northlake facility to the economic detriment of
the Northiake facility’s 8100 employees and GTE’s manufacturing
operations as a whole.
The Agency recommends denial of variance because it believes
that “a showing of general
adverse
economic conditions and dif-
ficulty in getting delivery of the required data and materials for
modification are not in and of themselves indicative of arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship.
..,What is before the Board is the
far from unusual difficulty of not providing sufficient
time to
finish your plans, order the equipment and deliver and install
such equipment in order to meet a specific compliance date.”
The
Agency further believes as a result of its investigation of this
petition and discussions with GTE personnel,
that a primary reason
for non—compliance was simply
“a lack of awareness and involvement
with the new regulations”.
It also notes that the Petitioners’
stations indicate 70 excursions
(out of 14,360 samples)
from the
Board’s ozone standard of
.08 ppm, and
2 of which exceeded the
Federal
standard of
.12 ppm.
Given these circumstances, and the
fact that hydrocarbon emissions are toxic and can have adverse
health effects (although none were reported in Northiake),
the
Agency
is of the opinion that GTE’s non-compliance should not
be excused.*
Although the Board does not reject out of hand allegations
of special hardship resulting from general economic conditions,
see
variance grant in Outboard Marine Corp.
v.
IEPA,
PCI3 80—211
*The Board notes however, that in adopting Rule 205(K),
its intent was
to minimize ozone formation by means of rejuiring
reduction of hydrocarbons, rather than to prevent ill—effects
from hydrocarbons in and of themselves.
See generally Opinion
in R78—3,
4;
35 PCB
243,
(August 23,
1979), but especially at
p.
250.
43—272
3
(May
28,
1981)
the Board
finds that GTE has failed to prove that
denial of variance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonahl.~?hard-
ship.
Also,
the facts pleaded by GTE might well he persuasive
if
brought forward as mitigating factors
in an enforcement action,
the circumstances here, including GTE’s general allegations of har~~
due to general economic and business problems,
are insufficient to
support grant of variance relief from Chapter
2.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact arid
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner, GTE Automatic Electric,
Inc.
is hereby denied
the requested variance from Rules
103,
205(j),
and 205(k)(3) of
Chapter
2:
Air Pollution for the period of July
1,
1980 to
July
31,
1981.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members
I. Goodman and N. Werner dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
~
adopted on the
____
‘day of
~,
,
1981 by a vote of
1’~
~—--~—
~
._~_
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Boarl
43—273