ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
4,
1980
PORG-~ARNER CORPORATION,
SPRING
)
DIVISION,
Petitioner,
I
v.
)
PCI3
80—129
C LLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AG? t’ICY,
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
HOARD
(by
I.
Goodman)
On July 10,
1980 Petitioner filed a petition for variance
from Rule 205(k)
of chapter 2, the Board’s air pollution control
regulations,
through December 31,
1982.
The petition is sought
in
order to
replace
nine
vapor degreasers with nine alkaline
washers
which would use
a caustic solution which is not as volatile as the
solvent
(perchioroethylene) used in connection with the degreasers.
Hearing
was
waived by Petitioner.
The Agency’s recommendation is to grant variance.
The
equipment replacement will result in a benefit to the environment
because all of Petitioner’s present emissions of volatile organic
material
(VOM)
(21.13 lbs./hr.) will be eliminated.
Thexefore,
the photochemical oxidant (ozone) primary nonattainment area
in
which Petitioner is located, Cook County,
will move toward desig-
nation as an attainment area by this amount, even though that
amount may not be a significant
factor.
Petitioner owns a large facility at
700
South 25th Avenue
in Beliwood,
a mixed industrial and residential area in suburban
Cook County.
Although
the
nearest
residences
are located 700 feet
from
the
facility,
the
Agency has received no complaints from area
residents (Rec.,p.3).
The facility manufactures metal parts and
materials and friction materials.
Petitioner’s principal market
is the automotive industry.
Because Petitioner has had to lay off
about one—third of its employees (which in 1979 numbered 1,224)
and has shut down temporarily during June
arid
again in July of
this year,
Petitioner has experienced losses
in income
(Pet.,
pp. 2—3).
Petitioner’s facility produces over 100 different products,
some of
which
require aquaeous or alkaline cleaning and others of
which require “ultra” cleaning.
Approximately 60
of the products
ate used to manufacture automobiles and industrial vehicles and are
sublected
to
vapor
degreasing
in
order
to
prepare for acid etching
40—53
and hondinq.
Petitioner utilizes four conveyorized, and five open
top, degreasers in its activities,
thus making
it sublect to
the
requirements of Rules 205(k)(3)(C)
and
(B)
respectively.
None of
the degreasers
are provided with the air pollution control equip-
ment required by those rules
(Pet.,p.4).
However, Petitioner
intends to eliminate all nine degreasers
from its operations by
the end of 1982 and,
with new alkaline wash processes, replace the
present hydrocarbon-containing solvent with
a mild caustic solu-
tion.
The cost of the modifications are estimated to be $300,000,
whereas the cost of compliance with Rule 205(k)(3)
would total
$100,000.
Petitioner apparently was denied a permit by the Agency
recently regarding a new degreaser it had ordered due to noncom-
pliance with Rule 205(k).
Petitioner now alleges the “only
alternative
to incurring
the
cost of compliance of $100,000
is
to shut down the degreasing process until permanent compliance can
be achieved.’t
The result of this, due to the relationship
tf
the
degreasing process to the production of the finished product,
is
alleged
to he the cessation of all production.
Petitioner’s compliance plan is essentially to shut down its
noncomplying vapor degreasing operations,
~
not to operate
them.
It seeks variance from the Board’s air pollution control
regulations in order to install a new, more environmentally safe,
degreasing process.
Grant of variance would save Petitioner
$100,000 in interim compliance costs, and it is this cost which
Petitioner alleges
is the arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
necessary in order for the Board to grant variances under the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The Agency supports this
statement of hardship, adding that the present VOM emissions are
not significant.
The Board has held in the past that economic losses involved
in complying with its regulations alone do not sufficiently demon-
strate either an arbitrary or an unreasonable hardship.
However,
the Board considers all relevant facts regarding whether compli-
ance would impose such hardship, including consistency with
applicable state and federal law and the impact upon the environ-
ment.
The Board finds that denying this variance would impose an
unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner.
To order the installation
of control equipment to be used for only a relatively short
period of time
(pending phase out of the vapor degreasers), would
not only be environmentally regressive, but environmentally unsound,
as
it could interfere with Petitioner’s plan to eliminate all
harmful VOM emissions from the degreasers.
Even though the amount
of Petitioner’s VOM emissions may he insignificant in terms of the
total concentrations of photochemical oxidants near the Cook
County nonattainment area, they are nonetheless harmful emissions.
The Board supports Petitioner’s decision to replace polluting
sources with nonpolluting sources and will grant variance subject to
certain terms and conditions through and including December 31,
1982,
40—54
Grant of variance is not inconsistent with the Clean Air Act,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
or the Board’s rules
and regulations.
In fact,
it supports the intent of those
enactments.
The Agency has represented that
it intends
to submit
the variance as a SIP revision pursuant
to
42 U.S.C. S7401,
et
seq.
As
such,
it will evidence the state’s efforts to achieve
attainment of the NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law of the Board
in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that
Borg—Warner Corporation, Spring Division, he granted variance from
Rules 205(j),
205(k)(3)(B), and 205(k)(3)(C) for its facility at
700 South 25th Avenue in Beliwood, Cook County,
from July 10,
1980
through and including December 31,
1982 under the following terms
and conditions.
1.
Borg—Warner Corporation shall apply to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for construction permits for the
alkaline wash system equipment on or before January 31,
1981.
2.
Borg—Warner
Corporation
shall
install
test
alkaline
wash
equipment
on
at
least
one
acid
etch
line
on or before May
15,
1981.
and
shall
complete
all
necessary
testing
of this equipment on or
before October 31,
1981.
3.
Borg-Warner Corporation shall send to the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
at
the
following
address
the
results of such testing:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
4.
Borg—Warner Corporation shall apply to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for operating permits for the
alkaline wash system equipment on or before September 31, 1982.
5.
Borg-Warner Corporation shall purchase all necessary
alkaline washers and other alkaline wash system equipment on or
before July 31,
1982,
6.
Borg-Warner Corporation shall remove all nine of its
present vapor degreasers and any related equipment,
and shall
completely install and have in proper operation all the alkaline
wash system—related equipment referred to in Paragraph
5 of this
Order on or before December 31,
1982.
7.
Borg-Warner Corporation shall
send to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency at the above address a report on
40—55
the operation of the alkaline wash system, including amount of
solution used and solution disposal methods, on or before March
1,
1983.
8,
Borg-Warner Corporation shall comply with all operating
procedures in Rules 205(k)(2)(B)
and
(C),
to the maximum extent
practicable, through December 31,
1982.
9.
Within
45
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
Petitioner
shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency, Variance Unit,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
IL
62706,
an executed Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to he hound
by all conditions of the variance.
This forty-five day period
shall he stayed
if Petitioner seeks judicial review of this
variance pursuant to Section 41 of the Environmental Protection
Act.
The Form of said certification shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We,)_
______________—
,
having
read
the Order of the Illinois Polluti~ñControl Board in PCB 80—129,
dated
,
understand and accept the Order and
agree to be bound by all of its terms and conditions.
___
___________
,
Petitioner
____________
____,
Authorized Agent
_______
,
Title
____—~____
,
Date
I, Christan
L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby pertify that(the abpve Opinion and Order
were adopted on the 4~
day of
~
1980 by a vote of
___
-
-
Christan
L.
Mof~et~J
Cléik
——
Illinois
Pollutich~Control
Board
40—56