ILLINOIS POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    October
    30,
    1975
    ELTRA
    CORPORATION,
    WOODSTOCK
    DIE
    CASTING DIVISION,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—208
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    Mr.
    Jack
    A Green appeared on behalf of Petitioner.
    Ms. Kathryn Sheehan Nesburg, Environment Protection Agency
    Counsel,
    appeared on behalf of Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    This
    matter
    comes before the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    upon the petition of the Woodstock Diecasting
    Division of Eltra Corporation
    (Woodstock)
    for variance
    from
    Rule 205(f)
    of the Air Pollution Regulations.
    On
    May 22,
    1975,
    the Board ordered Petitioner
    to amend
    its
    petition
    to include the criterion required by the United
    States
    Supreme Court Opinion of Train
    v. NRDC,
    43 USLW 4467.
    An
    amended petition was filed with the Board on July
    7,
    1975.
    on
    September
    15,
    1975,
    the Environmental Protection
    Aqency
    (Agency)
    filed its recommendation that the relief
    souqht by Woodstock be granted.
    A hearing was held September 25,
    1975.
    Petitioner operates a manufacturing facility in Woodstock,
    Mchenry
    County,
    Illinois.
    The facility produces zinc and
    aluminum
    die castings for large automotive manufacturers.
    In
    its
    processes, Woodstock produces 38,000,000 pounds of
    zinc castzngs and 4,000,000 pounds of aluminum castings
    primarily
    in the form of car grills and moldings.
    Petitioner
    seeks
    variance
    for
    its
    spray
    painting
    and
    coating
    operations.
    Approximately 31,076 gallons of paint and 97,465
    gallons
    of
    solvent
    are
    used
    annually.
    Woodstock
    plans to comply with Rule 205(f)
    by converting
    to
    exempt solvents,
    Indeed~.Petitioner will have converted
    no exempt solvents by Octoben 31~ 1975.
    Penltloner
    states
    tha~:
    ~t is not unnsuai for its
    customers
    to
    specify
    the type of paint,
    the paint source and
    19—143
    —2—
    operating conditions under which the paint
    is applied.
    Convincing its customers of the need to develop alternative
    paints and solvents was a slow and arduous task.
    This,
    coupled with
    the
    general
    scarcity
    of exempt solvents
    in the
    past,
    caused
    Petitioner
    to
    fail
    to
    comply
    with Rule 205(f)
    which
    was
    effective
    December
    31,
    1973
    (R15,
    19,
    23)
    *
    Petitioner
    has
    also had difficulty developing an exempt gray
    primer
    with proper adhesive properties
    (R22-3).
    Petitioner states
    that denial
    of
    this
    variance
    would
    cause unreasonable
    and
    arbitrary
    hardship
    in
    that
    it
    would
    be forced to shut down,
    losing $10,000,000
    in sales and
    laying off of 300 people.
    However,
    as the Agency aptly
    points out, the denial of
    a variance
    is not,
    in and of
    itself,
    a shutdown order.
    Mobil Oil v. EPA, PCB 73-562,
    ABC_Great
    Lake,
    Inc.,
    v.
    EPA,
    PCB
    72-39,
    Forty-Eight
    Insulations,
    Inc.
    v.
    EPA, PCB
    73-478.
    Attached to the Agency Recommendation
    is
    the
    data
    from
    a temporary monitoring site in McHenry County.
    The Agency
    monitored ambient ozone concentrations
    from August
    1 through
    4,
    1975.
    This
    data shows that the one hour ambient air
    quality
    standard
    of
    0.08 ppm ozone was exceeded twice in
    those three days~
    Rule 312 of the Air Pollution Regulations
    requires that said standard not be exceeded more than once
    per year.
    The Board finds
    that
    Woodstock
    has
    shown
    the
    necessary
    hardship, and has an adequate compliance plan to merit the
    granting of a variance.
    However, pursuant to the Train
    decision,
    supra, the Board must deny the relief sought as
    ii~ir as
    it concerns a variance beyond July
    31,
    1975,
    the
    attainment date
    for the primary ambient air quality standard
    for photochemical oxidants.
    The information before the
    Board shows that this standard is being violated in McHenry
    County and
    Petitioner
    has
    failed
    to
    show
    that
    it
    is
    not
    contrnbutinq
    to
    this
    failure,
    Therefore,
    the
    Board
    will
    crant
    Petitioner
    variance
    from
    Rule
    205(f)
    of
    the
    Air
    Regulations
    until
    July
    31,
    1975.
    This
    Opinion
    constitutes
    the
    Board~s
    findings
    of
    fact
    and
    conclusions
    of
    law
    in
    this
    matter.
    Mr.
    Dumelle
    concurs.
    ORDER
    in
    is the Order
    of
    the
    Board
    that
    Woodstock
    Diecasting
    Division
    of
    Eltra
    Corporation
    be
    granted
    variance
    from
    19— 144
    —3—
    Rule
    205(f)
    until July
    31,
    1975,
    for
    its
    Woodstock,
    Illinois,
    spray painting facility.
    IT IS
    SO
    ORDERED.
    Mr.
    Young
    abstained.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinio
    a
    d Order
    were adopted
    on
    the
    ~3&’~
    day of
    ______________
    1975 by a vote of~3-~
    *
    Christan L. Moffett~
    k
    Illinois Pollution C
    ol Board
    19
    —
    145

    Back to top