ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

24,

1975

AIRWAY PRODUCTS CORPORATION,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

)

PCB 74—472

)

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

Mr. Richard

H.

Sanders, Attorney, appeared for the Petitioner;

Mr. Peter

E. Orlinsky, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OP THE BOARD

(by Mr. Zeitlin)

Airway Products,

Inc. (Airway),

on December 13,

1974, filed

a

Petition for Variance from the requirements of Rule 205(f)

of

the Air

Pollution Regulations of the Pollution Control Board

(Board).

The Variance

is sought until December 31,

1975,

and would essentially constitute an

extension of a Variance previously granted by this Board, which expired

on December 31,

1974.

PCB

73—554,

11 PCB 495(1974).

Rule

205(f) limits the emission

of organic materials

to a discharge

of

8 pounds per hour.

It was shown in the prior Variance case that

Petitioners Schiller Park,

Illinois plant emits

up to 67 lbs./hour of

nonexempt, photochemically

reactive solvents

11 PCB at 495.

Those

emissions are generated from electrostatic spray booths and bake ovens

used in the painting of grocery store shelves,

tables and check—out

counters manufactured

at Petitioner’s

facility.

Approximately 200

persons are employed by Airway at

the Schiller Park plant.

Airway’s compliance program when

it was granted the Variance in PCB

73—554 consisted of a switch—over

to

exempt, non—reactive solvents.

The

Board

in granting that Variance noted

that such solvents could not be

obtained at that

time.

The Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

agreed in its Recommendation,

in

that case,

that such exempt solvents

were not at that time available,

and recommended

that the Variance in

PCB 73—554 be granted.

In the instant Petition, and in an amendment thereto filed January

29,

1975, Airway has once again alleged that exempt solvents are not

available..

Airway now, however, has proposed. alternate compliance

plans.

Airway’s primary plan for achieving compliance with Rule

205(f)

is now a switch—over to water reducible spray painting processes.

Alternatively, Airway proposes that,

if the switch—over

to water reduc—

able spray painting is not feasible,

it will use a high solids liquid

paint

in its coating operations.

16—455

---

—2—

Airway has also considered several other methods for achieving compliance,

but alleges that none are practical at the present time.

It is unable to

obtain gas necessary to operate an afterburner; adsorption systems employing

activated carbon are rejected due to its large total exhaust volume;

it is

still waiting for a feasibility study regarding a wet scrubbing system.

In

the amendment to its Petition,

Airway proposed timetables for

achieving compliance using the

two alternate methods which it prefers

—

water reducible spray painting and high solids liquid paint.

The target

dates submitted for its primary compliance effort, water reducible spray

paints, indicated compliance by July 30,

1975.

The target date submitted

for

the high solid liquid paint alternative was also July 30,

1975.

(It

should be noted that Airway

is presently proceeding with the compliance

schedules employing both of these alternate methods.) Citing these

target dates in

its Recommendation,

the Agency while recommending the

requested Variance—felt that it would not be necessary that the Board

grant a Variance past the July 30,

1975 completion

date scheduled for

either of these alternate control methods.

At a hearing held on

this matter on March

19,

1975, Airway presented

testimony indicating that the time schedules submitted for compliance,

using either method

,

are very tight

(R.

10).

Other unchallenged testi-

mony presented at

the hearing indicated clearly that Airway is attempting

in complete good faith to achieve compliance with Rule 205(f), and that

it fully expects

to be in compliance by July 30, barring unexpected

delays.

A timetable submitted by Airway indicates that it is at least

even with its proposed schedule for switch—over to water reducible

paint,

and is only slightly behind schedule

in its testing and review of

high solid liquid paint.

(The schedule slippage with regard to high

solvent liquid paint does not seem particularly important in light of

Airway’s “85

per cent” certainty that the water reducible process will

be successful(R.

7)

).

Weighing the factors in this matter,

the Board is again disposed

to grant Airway the requested Variance.

Airway has successfully shown

that, despite its extensive good faith efforts,

it has been unable to

comply with the compliance plan which was considered in

the earlier

Variance case.

Further, Airway has clearly shown that it

is presently

making considerable efforts to achieve compliance, including a laudable

program of pursuing alternative methods

of compliance at

the same time.

The

same hardships which allowed our grant

of the earlier Variance are

still present, and once again the Agency has recommended that the Variance

be granted.

As

to the length of

the Variance, however,

the Board feels that the

Agency has successfully shown that a grant beyond July 30,

1975 would be

unwarranted.

Petitioner failed to show the likelihood of any material

delays in its compliance program,

and merely speculated that such delays

might happen.

Where a Petitioner has shown that,

as

is expected,

it is

complying with a reasonable compliance schedule, the Board cannot base

further Variance extension on mere speculation. Although Airway is

to be

lauded for

its attempt thus far,

it simply has not demonstrated any need

for a Variance beyond July

30,

1975.

This Opinion constitutes

the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board

in this matter.

16 —456

---

—3—

ORDER

IT

IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner

Airway Products

Inc. be granted a Variance from Rule 205(f)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Regulations, from January

1,

1975 until July 30,

1975,

subject

to

the following conditions:

1.

Petitioner shall continue, as required under the prior Variance,

to utilize as much exempt solvent

as can be furnished by its suppliers.

2.

Within

30 days of the adoption

of this Order, Petitioner shall

submit a definite compliance program to

the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, specifing which method of compliance will be utilized,

interim construction dates,

and the final dates

on which compliance will

be

achieved.

Said compliance plan will be submitted to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

3.

Petitioner thereafter shall submit monthly progress reports, before the

10th of each month,

to

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

indicating its effort to obtain such exempt solvents, and detailing

progress made toward compliance.

Such reports shall be submitted to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division

of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

4.

Petitioner shall apply for and obtain all necessary Agency construc-

tion and operating permits.

5,

Within 35 days of

the adoption of this Order, Petitioner Airway

Products shall execute and forward to the address noted above,

a certifica-

tion of acceptance

in the following form:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We)

________________________

________

having read and fully understood the Order of

the Illinois Pollution Control Board

in PCB 74—472,

hereby accept said Order and the Variance granted

thereby, understanding that such acceptance is

irrevocable and renders binding all terms and con-

ditions therenf.

Signed

____________________

Title

_____________________

Date

_______

16—457

---

Mr. Dumelle dissents.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contro’, Board

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on

the

~

day of _______________________________,

1975

by

a vote of ~to

4~.