ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 10, 1975
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—483
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odel1~)
On December 20, 1974, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
(Westinghouse) filed a Petition For Variance with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (Board). On April 25, 1974, in Westing-
house Electric Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency
PCB 74-72, 12 PCB 167 (April 25, 1974), the Board had granted
Petitioner a variance from Rule 205(f) of the Air Pollution
Regulations (Chapter Two) until December 31, 1974. This grant
was to enable it “to operate both its #3 paint dip tank and its
#6 bake oven to emit 11.725 lbs per hour of photochemically
reactive organic solvent vapors from each.” A compliance
schedule was included as part of the Order. The Petition For
Variance of December 20, 1974, sought a one year extension of
the previous grant for the same two emission sources at the
earlier levels, both in excess of the 8 pounds per hour limit in
Rule 205(f) of Chapter Two.
On January 3, 1975, the Board ordered the Petitioner to
file additional information in support of its request. Westing-
house filed more information on January 22. The 90-day period
for final Board action under Section 38 of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act (Act) commenced to run from the time of
this submission. On March 12, 1975, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation.
Petitioner’s facility, located at 3900 West 41st Street,
Chicago, Illinois, fabricates and assembles motor control centers.
Before distribution, the goods are painted and bake-dried at the
plant. The #3 paint dip tank and #6 bake oven both operate 8.5
hours per day, 6 days per week for 51 weeks per year. The in-
formation from the parties stated that Petitioner began receiving
exempt paints and solvents in July 1974 and blended these
materials with non-exempt solvents and paints already in its dip
tank. On November 27, 1974, an incident at the plant resulted
in the contamination of 1,600 gallons of paint at a loss of $12,000.
Additional exempt and non-exempt paints and solvents were blended,
but technical problems with this mixture made it unsuitable for
commercial use. Suppliers informed Petitioner that the
exempt and
non—exempt paints formulations and solvents were incompatible. As
a result, Westinghouse went back to total use of non—exempt solvents
and paints at the end of 1974. In the January 22, 1975, submission,
16—381
—2—
Westinghouse indicated that a new exempt solvent was on the
market but that the supplier would not guarantee its compat—
ibility with its non-exempt paint. If this solvent is used
there is a possibility that “fish eyes” will appear on the
painted parts causing rejection. Petitioner, however, has gone
ahead and is now starting to use this exempt solvent
in its
#3
dip tank.
The Agency advised the Board to deny the variance. The
Agency stated that conversations with Petitioner’s personnel re-
vealed that if the new formulation is acceptable, totally exempt
coatings can be used within four months from the beginning of the
January 8, 1975, experimentation program. The Agency also noted
that Westinghouse could achieve immediate compliance with Rule
205(f) by switching to exempt formulations now available. It was
the Agency’s understanding that the sole reason for the variance
request was to enable the Petitioner to continue using the present
mixture in the tank, thereby saving the cost of immediate replace-
ment. Citing Board cases, the Agency was of the opinion that cost
alone was not sufficient grounds for non-compliance. Finally, the
Agency pointed out that Petitioner had already been given one
variance to achieve compliance and in any event, should a variance
be granted, four months instead of one year should be the maximum
length of the variance.
We grant the variance from January 1, 1975, to and including
May 4, 1975. While it is generally true that cost alone is not
sufficient grounds for the grant of a variance, when coupled with
good faith, creating marginal impact on the environment, and with-
out citizen objection, a temporary variance may be justified. A
longer variance is not warranted on the facts of this case. Also,
warm weather will bring a return of ozone problems to Chicago.
It is Board policy to limit hydrocarbon emissions as much as
possible during the summer season to protect the people of the
community. In National Metalwares, Inc. v. Environmental Protection
Agency PCB 74—239, 13 PCB 603 (September 12, 1974) we indicated we
were reevaluating our position on granting variances from Rule 205(f)
of Chapter Two. We stated,
“ . . .
in the Chicago area, the recent
wave of ozone alerts means that additional abatement procedures are
necessary to protect the health of the public.” Based on the facts
of this case, we believe that Petitioner is entitled to a short
variance until early May 1975.
ORDER
Petitioner is hereby granted a variance from Rule 205(f) of
Chapter Two to operate both its #3 paint dip tank and its #6 bake
oven at such a level as to emit not more than 11.725 pounds per
hour of photochemically reactive organic solvent vapors from each.
This Variance, which extends from January 1, 1975, through May 4,
1975, is subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall submit a report to the Agency by May
15, 1975, detailing its procedures used in achieving compliance
with Rule 205(f). Said report shall be sent to: Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control, Control
—3—
Program Coordinator, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706.
2. Petitioner shall utilize as much exempt solvent
formulations as practically possible during the variance period.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
th~t
the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
t6”
day of
___________,
1975, by a vote of
____
to 0
C ristan L. Mo~t
16—383