ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 8,
1975
MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75-70
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin):
The Petition for Variance in this matter was filed by
the Motor Wheel Corporation,
(Motor Wheel), on February 13,
1975.
The Petition seeks relief from Rules 103(b) and 205(f)
of Chapter
2: Air Pollution of the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
Rules and Regulations.
PCB Regs.
Ch.
2, Rules
103(b),
205(f).
Such Variance relief is sought until May
30,
1975,
or until
such earlier time as Petitioner
is able
to achieve compliance with 1~u1e205(f).
Petitioner
is an Ohio Corporation which operates a
manufacturing facility in Mendota, LaSalle County, and
employs 270 local residents.
Motor Wheel produces approximately
2.5 million original equipment steel automobile wheels per
year at that plant, principally for the Chrysler Corporation.
(Motor Wheel also produces farm equipment at the Mendota
Plant, but this Petition is concerned only with the auto-
mobile wheel manufacturing process.)
As
a part of the automobile wheel manufacturing process,
Petitioner operates two automobile wheel paint spray booths,
to apply approximately 69,500 gallons of paint per year to
such wheels before they are shipped to the Chrysler Corporation.
Although Motor Wheel and the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
differ as to the amount by which the emissions from
these spray booths exceed the limitations of Rule 205(f),
it
is clear that the emissions from tliese spray booths are not
in compliance with that Rule.
Motor Wheel estimates that
approximately 16 pounds per hour of organic material are
emitted from each of these spray booths, which organic
materials are photocheinically reactive within the meaning of
Rule 201; the Agency,
in its Recommendation filed April
4,
16
—
623
—2—
1975, estimates that each booth, with its attendant flashoff
area and drying oven,
emits approximately 60.5 pounds per
hour of photochemically reactive organic material.
(The
Board need not here determine whether Petitioner’s calculations
or those of the Agency are the correct ones.
Insofar as the
Variance is for a short period and the Agency has recommended
that the Variance be granted,
as will be discussed below,
the difference
is not material here.)
Motor Wheel states that it has been attempting since
August of 1973 to obtain an automobile wheel paint which
would enable the two spray booths
to achieve compliance with
Rule 205(f). The difficulty is that Motor Wheel must submit
any paint to be used to the Chrysler Corporation for quality
control approval. While the exhibits to both the Petition
and the Agency’s Recommendation indicate that Motor Wheel’s
suppliers have submitted several paints which are in compliance
with Rule 205(f),
none of these have in the past been approved
by Chrysler.
Now, however, Motor Wheel states that its
suppliers will be able to supply materials which have been
approved by Chrysler, and Petitioner requests a Variance
from Rule 205(f) pending receipt of those materials.
It should be noted that the Board does not, by this
Opinion, accept the contention that such quality control
standards of the Chrysler Corporation
—
or of any other
entity
-
are to be given priority over the standards which
we have set to insure a clear and healthful environment.
Here, although such a contention has not been explicitly made,
it might be inferred;
if it has been,
we specifically reject
it.
The conditions and circumstances under which we can and
will grant Variances are to be found in the Environmental
Protection Act, our Rules and Regulations1 and our prior
decisions.
In this case,
there has been a showing that
a
severe hardship would be imposed upon Petitioner were it
required to comply immediately with Rule 205 (f);
as with
all Variances,
the specific facts leading to the grant of a
Variance must be carefully weighed on a case—by—case basis.
Motor Wheel also points out in its Petition that it has
been unable to obtain the Agency Operating Permit required
by Rule 103(b) due to its inability to comply with Rule
205(f).
The Agency Recommendation verifies this fact.
For
that reason, Motor Wheel also requests a Variance from the
permit requirement of that section.
16—624
—3
Shortly after the Petition in this matter was filed,
the Agency submitted a formal objection and Motion for
Hearing, which the Board granted on March 26, 1975.
The
Board thereafter denied Motor Wheel’s first Motion for
Disposition Without Hearing,
but granted its second Motion
for Disposition Without Hearing after the Agency specifically
withdrew its objection to the Variance requested here,
in
the Agency Recommendation filed April
4,
1975.
The Board’s
Order of April
24, 1975 by Mr. Dumelle, wherein Motor Wheel’s
second Motion for Disposition Without a Hearing was granted,
fully describes these procedural matters.
The Agency Recommendation in this matter agrees that
Motor Wheel
“seems to have a rather unique problem in substituting
solvents.”
(Rec.
3)..
The 1~gencyagrees
that
Motor
T,~1heel’s
difficulty in obtaining materials for its spray booths which
will meet both the requirements of Rule 205(f)
and the
strict quality control standards of
the
Chrysler Corporation,
limits the choice of exempt solvents available to Motor
Wheel;
The Agency also points out,
however, that Motor Wheel has
been “rather tardy”
in submitting
its
Variance Petition as
regards Rule 205
(f).
The Agency states also that
it
has
received no objection to the granting of this Variance.
The Agency Recommendation states that the compliance
program of Motor Wheel, which involves the substitution of
nonphotochemically reactive solvents,
is acceptable.
The
Agency does, however,
object to the granting of
a Variance
from Rule 103(b).
The Agency states that it has in fact
denied Motor Wheel an operating permit,
as required under
that Rule, because Motor Wheel was unable to demonstrate
compliance
with
Rule 205 (f).
But the Agency does point out
that,
should a Variance be granted from the applicable
emission standards,
(Rule 205(f)),
it would be able to grant
an operating permit upon receipt of an appropriate application.
This being the case,
the Board finds no reason to grant
a
Variance from the operating permit requirement.
Insofar as
the Agency is willing to grant such a permit once
a Variance
has been demonstrated with regard to Rule 205(f), Motor
Wheel has shown no hardship in the event we should refuse to
grant a Variance from the operating permit requirement.
As
to the requested Variance from Rule 205 (f), the
Board agrees that a Variance with regard to that Section is
warranted.
Although Motor Wheel’s Variance Petition comes
to us rather late,
(insofar as that Rule has been in effect
for some time), the Petition does ask relief for a relatively
short period of time,
and does demonstrate an acceptable
compliance plan,
under which Motor Wheel will be in com-
pliance with Rule
205(f) within the very near future.
16—625
—4—
In summary, the requested Variance from Rule 205(f)
will be granted, and the requested Variance from 103(b) will
be denied.
This Opinion constitues the finding and conclusions of
law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Petitioner Motor Wheel Corporation is granted a
Variance from the emission limitations of Rule
205(f) of Chapter
2: Air Pollution, until May 30,
1975,
or such earlier time as Petitioner
is able
to obtain adequate quantities of nonphotochemically
reactive materials,
such Variance being subject to
the condition that Motor Wheel Corporation apply
for the appropriate operating permits from the
Environmental Protection Agency within 30 days of
the adoption of this Order;
2.
That portion of the Variance Petition of Motor
Wheel Corporation in this matter which requests
Rule 103(b)
is denied.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify th~tthe~above Opinion and Order of the Board
were adopt~ on the
~
day of
1975 by
avoteof~_to~
Illinois Pollution
16
—626