ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 29,

1976

ARVEY CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—226

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND

ORDER

OF THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board on an Amended Petition

for Variance by Arvey Corporation, located at 3500 North Kimball

Avenue,

Chicago,

Illinois.

Relief

is requested from Rule 205(f)

of the Board’s Air Rules pertaining to the emission of photochemically

reactive materials.

Petitioner utilizes solvents and castings

in

its laminating process.

Some of these solvents and coatings

cause emissions of organic material which exceed the

8 pound per

hour limit of Rule 205(f).

The proposed compliance program is the

reformulation of solvents containing toluol to “exempt” solvents.

Petitioner’s use of the term “exempt solvent”

is confusing.

The term “exempt” would normally refer to solvents containing

less than

5

alcohols and/or hetones, or as otherwise provided

for in the definition of Photochemically Reactive Material in

Air Rule 201.

However, no evidence is given to warrant such an

exemption.

“Exemption”

could also apply to Air Rule 205(f) (2) (D).

However, no evidence is given to show that petitioner’s reformulations

would reduce the percentage of organic material used to 20

or

less of the total volume.

The only other way for petitioner to come into compliance with

Air Rule 205(f) would be to reduce its discharges of organic

material to

8 pounds per hour or less.

Again, Petitioner has

not shown that such reduction would result from its present and

planned reformulations.

Each of the eight laminating machines

now emit 39~.375lbs/hr. of photochemically reactive solvents.

19—783

---

—2—

Petitioner has failed to present facts necessary for the Board

to determine whether the use of reformulations would ultimately

result in compliance with the Air Rules.

Without such evidence, no

variance will be granted.

Further, petitioner admits, on page

4 of its Amended Petition,

that it has not looked into the installation of control devides

for individual emission sources.

Past studies “were on an overall

basis.”

Therefore, petitioner has failed to show either that reformula-

tion would result in compliance or that the installation of control

devices would work an unreasonable hardship.

Petitioner also

fails to provide alternate compliance programs in case the reformula—

tions are later found to be unacceptable.

The Board must therefore dismiss the instant petition.

Due

to the above stated inadequacies it has not been necessary to discuss

the ambient air quality effects which might result from these emissions.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

The Arvey Corporation’s Amended Petition for Variance is hereby

dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Boar~, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

Q9”~

day of January,

1976 by a vote of

~

Christan L.

offe

ler

Illinois Pollutio

ontrol Board

19—

764