ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

31,

1975

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74—188

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER CF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This case comes before the Board upon petition of

General Electric Company

(G.E.)

for variance from the

limitations

of P~le205(f)

as specified

in the Air Pollution

Control Regulations

(Air Regulations)

as

it applies

to their

installation

located

in Danville,

Illinois.

The operatitn for which the variance

is sought

is an

electro—static painting facility used to apply a baking

enamel to carbon steel enclosures for ballast transformers.

The plant’s total process involves the manufacture of power

supplies and light Thtensity controls for high intensity,

fluorescent and numerous other types of gaseous discharge

lamps.

These devices for ballast are used for industrial

and commercial general

lighting,

area lighting and home

lighting.

The history of this petition for variance starts with

a

permit application by G.E.

in July of 1973.

According to

the record,

a permit was issued by the Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Z~gency (Agency)

in August of 1973 to run

until April of l974~ in consideration of a compliance sched-

ule which indicated that G.E. would solve their solvent

operation by employrrent of complying non-photochemically

reactive solvents.

In December of

1973,

G.E. submitted a

new application

for operating permit

to cover its solvent

operation which stated that G.E. had abandoned its previ-

ously articulates compliance plan and,

instead, expected

to

reduce its paint usage to 5,000 gallons or less per year by

use of prepainte’.i material.

G.E.

felt that this action

would bring it into compliance with Rule 103(i) (7) which

states that no permit

is required for “painting operations

using not in excess of 5,000 gallons of paint

(including

thinner).”

In addition,

G.E. presumed that this action

would bring them into compliance with Rule 205(f) (2) (D)

which provides for an exemption for anyone whose compliance

program provides

for the reduction of organic material used

in processes

to 20

or less of total volume by May 30,

1975.

This new permit application was denied by the Agency stating

that Rule 205(f) (2) (D)

essentially envisioned

a changeover

18— 218

---

—2—

to aqueous base paints.

At that time G.E.

filed the instant

variance petitioii.

The Agency and G.E.,

in a long series of petitions,

amended petitionr,

recommendations,

amended recommendations

and letters,

argue at length concerning G.E.’s interpre-

tation of the 80

reduction rule and its application to

G.E. ‘s process and whether G.E.

had. indeed shown good faith

in their attempt to

come into compliance with the Board’s

regulations.

NotwL:hstanding all of these arguments,

the

record shows that G.E.,

for whatever reason,

economic or

environmental, has since 1970 continuously reduced their

usage of photocheinically reactive solvents so that by March

3,

1975,

the Danville plant has eliminated all photochem’-

ically reactive

3olvents from its processes.

Said elim-

ination was achieved by transferring some production

to

other facilities whose processes do not require solvents;

by

using some prepaLnted material;

and by shifting to non-

photochemically reactive solvents.

The Board finds that although there were some missteps

and delays in the ci~mplianceprogram of G.E.

due apparently

to misunderstandinç~and a temporary termination of the

operation at Danvilie,

G.E.

has pursued compliance with the

Board’s regulations

in good faith.

The Board also finds

that G.E.

has ca:~riedits burden of proof concerning unrea-

sonable hardship as

it pertains

to this variance petition.

The record indicafes that G.E.

experienced problems

in 1974

with regard to availability of the exempt solvents.

The

Board notes that the availability problem with regard to

exempt solvents during 1974 has been presented before in

numerous other case~.

The hardship involved in shutting

down a line due

to unavailability of complying solvents and

the attendant loss of trained people and product market is

suitably presented in the record.

The Agency,

in

its final letter of May 15,

1975, cor-

rectly notes that G.E.’s request

for a variance from January

1,

1974 to March

3,

1975 cannot be granted since the starting

date of January

1.

1974 was first proposed in G.E.’s April

1,

1975 brief suboequent

to the hearing and cannot therefore

be considered

an amendment to their petition for variance.

The Board will thus grant

a variance to G.E.

for their

Danville operation from Rule 205(f) of the Air Regulations

from May 21, 1974 to January

1,

1975 as requested by G.E.

in

its petition for variance dated May 21,

1974.

This Opinion ccnstitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Pollution Control Board.

18

—

219

---

—3—

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that

variance from tfe limitations of Rule 205(f)

of the Illinois

Air Pollution C~ntrolRegulations be granted to the General

Electric Company at their Danville,

Illinois, plant for the

period May 21,

1974

to January

1,

1975.

I, Christan L~Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, her~I’ycertify the above Opi ion and Order

were adop~edon

tne

________

day of

________,

1975 by

a

vote of

~-(‘~

Christan

L. Moffe~tt~/C~k

Illinois Pollution

dc

~tol Board

18

—