ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 14, 1975

SAMUEL BINGHAM COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74—426

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent,

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):

Samuel Bingham Company, (hereinafter “Petitioner”)

filed a petition on November 18, 1974 which sought to extend

a previously granted variance from Rule 205(f) of the Air

Pollution Regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency

(hereinafter “Agency”) filed a recommendation on February 5,

1975 to grant the variance subject to certain conditions.

No hearing was held.

Petitioner operates a facility located in Franklin

Park, where it manufactures rubberized rollers for the

printing and graphic arts industries. Approximately 95

pounds per hour of a photochemically reactive hydrocarbon,

toluene, are emitted from Petitioner’s manufacturing process

which utilizes a soaking tank, three mixers, and three

coating/spreading machines. On February 21, 1974 the Board

granted Petitioner a one year variance from Rule 205(f) of

the Air Pollution Regulations which allowed Petitioner to

continue using toluene in excess of numerical limitations

(Samuel Bingham Company v, EPA, 11 PCB 361 (February 21,

1974)). In the prior proceeding, Petitioner proposed a

complete switch from photochemically ractive solvents to

exempt non—photochemically reactive solvents thereby achieving

compliance with Rule 205(f). Petitioner was granted the

previous variance because of problems in obtaining exempt

solvents.

Petitioner again alleges that sufficient quantities of

these exempt solvents are unavailable and therefore is

requesting a one year extension of its variance. Because of

the questionable availability of exempt solvents in the

future, Petitioner has begun to install a carbon absorption

unit designed to absorb 99+ of hydrocarbons exhausted.

15

—

507

---

Petitioner has installed hoods and enclosures over the

emission sources and estimates that the entire project will

be completed by February of 1976~ The Agency stated that it

believes that Petitioner’s proposed control system will

enable Petitioner

to

comply with the requirements of Rule

205(f) of the Air Pollution Regulations and that the stated

time schedule for completion of the project is reasonable.

The Board finds that because of the lack of objections

to the previous variance and the present proceeding, the

industrial

location of Petitioner’s facility, and the control

program being instituted by Petitioner, a variance should be

granted. In addition, the Agency states that Petitioner

will continue to utilize all available exempt solvents in an

effort to minimize the non-compliance.

The utilization

of non-photochemically reactive solvents

during the duration of this variance is to be encouraged

because of the role that photochemically reactive hydrocarbons

occupy in the formation of ozone. For this reason, the

Board would require that Petitioner, to the maximum extent

possible, utilize available non-photochemically reactive

solvents during the months of May through October. While

compliance with Rule 205(f) is important throughout the

year, compliance during months May through October is especially

important when ambient levels of ozone have occurred beyond

existing standards.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of facts

and conclusions of law.

Mr. Henss dissents.

ORDER

The Pollution Control Board, hereby grants the Samuel

Bingham Company a variance from Rule 205(f) of the Air

Pollution Regulations until February 21, 1976 subject to

the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall continue to use as much non-

photochemically reactive solvents as possible, especially

between May and October, inclusive.

2. Petitioner shall apply and obtain all necessary

construction and operating permits from the Agency.

3. Petitioner shall submit a revised compliance plan

to the Agency by March 3, 1975 which shall detail a program

for achieving compliance with Rule 205(f)

of Air Pollution

15

—

508

---

Control Regulations. Said compliance plan shall be submitted

to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

4, Petitioner shall execute a Performance Bond in a

form acceptable to the Agency in the amount of $1,000. The

purpose of this bond is insure timely installation of the

hydrocarbon vapor recovery system. Said bond shall be

submitted to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

5. Petitioner shall submit monthly written progress

reports to the Agency detailing progressmade toward completion

of the control system as well as amounts of exempt solvents

and toluene used. Said reports shall be sent to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

~

day of February, 1975 by a vote of

Christan L. Moff

Clerk

Illinois Pollutio Control Board

15

—

509