ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
July
17, 1975
INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER COMPANY,
Petitioner,
)
PCB
74~487
ENVI RONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
(IPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin):
On
December
26,
1974,
Petitioner,
International
Harvester
Company
(Harvester)
filed with the Pollution
Control
Board
(Board)
a
~Motion
to Extend Variance”;
this
was
treated
by
the
Board
as a
new Petition for Variance.
A
Recommendation
ot
the
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
was
received
on
February
10,
1975.
Pursuant to Motion
and agreement
of
the
parties,
this matter is decided without
hearing.
On
March 21,
1974,
the Board granted
Harvester
a Variance
from
Rule
205(f)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution of
the
Board’s
Rules
and
Regulations;
that variance extended until December 31,
1974
subject
to
several conditions.
International Harvester
EPA
POE
73—559,
11 PCB 635
(1974)
That Variance
concerned
rfter’s
farm
equipment manufacturing plant,
located
in
Canton,
Fulton
County.
The
Board
found
that
Harvester
had
proceeded
in
good
faith
in
its
attempts
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
photochernically
reactive
solvent
standard
of
Rule
205 (f)
w:Ltb
reqard
to
that
plant’s
usage
of
102,000
gallons
of
ua::nt
and
30,000
gallons
of
solvent per
year, which
then
prociuoea 172.7
:Lbs,
per hour of photochemically reactive
orqanic
material
In
summary,
Harvester’s
compliance
plan
cons (sled
of
a
conversion
to
the
use
of
non~photochemically
Ct:
T
me
so :Lveflts
Dust:::;
1974,
Harvester
succeeded
in
completely
substituting
non~reactsve
solvents,
and in replacing
all
but
two
of its
aint:
formulations
with non—reactive paints,
amounting to a
total
of
81
non—reactive paint.
However, Harvester states
that
it:.
was
unable
to find a non—reactive paint suitable for
use
in
one
manufacturing operation employing an air—drying
paint
system,
The Agency’s Recommendation states that the
18— 133
—2—
lie
a
,,
e
an
tat
1•i
0
1’
S
S.
r
r
1•
S
S
a
)
r
V.
F
a
—3—
In its motion for decision without hearing, filed March
13,
1975, Harvester estimated 100
compliance by July 1,
1975.
Thereafter,
in Harvester’s response to the Agency’s
response
to its motion for decision without hearing, Harvester
agreed to the terms of the Agency’s Recommendation which
requested that the Variance be granted only until July
1,
1975.
On these pleadings,
a grant beyond that date would be
unnecessary.
As noted above, we found Harvester’s compliance plan to
be reasonable when originally granting this Variance.
On
the information now before us, we feel that Harvester has
attempted in good faith to proceed with this compliance
plan,
and that the variance requested here is warranted.
The actions now being undertaken to achieve 100
compliance
are apparently extensive, and would seem to involve considerable
disruption of Petitioner’s manufacturing process.
On these
facts,
we shall grant the requested variance until July 1,
1975.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board
in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
Petitioner International Harvester be granted a Variance
from Rule 205(f)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution, of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, from December 31,
1974, until July
1,
1975.
This Variance is granted subject to the condition
that Petitioner proceed with the compliance plan detailed in
the accompanying Opinion, and report on the completion of
that plan to the Environmental Protection Agency, no later
than
30 days
front the date of this Order, at the following
address:
Environmental Protection Agency
Control Program Coordinator
Division of Air Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Soringfield,
Illinois 62706
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify the above
pinion and Order
were adopted
on~
the __________day of
___________,
1975,
by a vote of
~
Christan L. Moffett, ,4~erk
Illinois Pollution CÔS&ol Board
18
—
135