I
I
I
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
4,
1974
I
AMEROCK CORPORATION
PETITIONER
)
I
v.
)
PCB 74-13
I
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RESPONDENT
)
I
I
I
I
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Marder)
I
This action involves a variance request filed on January
7,
1974,
by Amerock Corporation.
Relief is sought from Rule 205
(f)
until
March
31,
1975, to allow the operation of Petitioner’s painting and
lacquering facilities located in Rockford, Illinois.
The Agency on February 6,
1974,
filed a motion before the Board,
I
objecting to the grant of
a variance and calling for a hearing on
the matter.
The Board on February 14, 1974,
issued an Order stating
I
that the motion will be covered with the case.
The Agency in its
recommendation filed March 12, 1974,
recommended a grant for six
months, subject to certain conditions.
Petitioner owns and operates in Rockford,
Illinois, two plants
which are the subject of this petition.
The first plant located at
4000 Auburn Street in Rockford, Illinois, employs 1600 people and con-
sists of the general offices,
a machine shop,
a small zinc foundry,
a
plating department, and a surface coating department.
The surface
coating department
is the source of emissions in this matter.
There
are four rooms in the surface coating department.
Rooms
#2,
3, and 4
are presently in compliance; however, Room #1
is not in compliance and
thus is a subject of this variance proceeding.
Petitioner also operates
I
a plant at 416 S. Main Street, Rockford,
Illinois, where it employs
approximately 190 persons.
The plant primarily finishes window hard-
ware.
In connection with the finishing process, Petitioner operates
one electrostatic paint room,
containing two Ransburg electrostatic disc
spraying systems and a bake oven.
The following table details emissions at both plant sites:
I
I
12—25
I
—2—
South Main Location
Allowable Under Rule 205
(f)
-
8 lbs/hr.
Coating Material
Oven Emissions
Spray Booth Emissions
Coppertone Enamel
23.7 lbs/hr.
15.8 lbs/hr.
Paladin Black Enamel
14.6 lbs/hr.
9.4 lbs/hr.
Venetian Bronze
9.4 lbs/hr.
6.2 lbs/hr.
Black Wrinkel
10.5
lbs/hr.
7.0 ins/hr.
Auburn Street Location
-
Electrostatic Paint Room #1*
Clear Lacquer
5.4 lbs/hr.
12.5 lbs/hr.
Paladin Black
12.5 lbs/hr.
8.2 lbs/hr.
*Rooms
#2,
3 and
4 are in compliance.
On November 27,
1973, Amerock Corporation was granted an operating
permit for its painting and lacquering facilities.
Said permit ex-
pired on March
31,
1974, because the compliance plan predicted compli-
ance by that date.
Petitioner’s compliance program called for either
the elimination or reformation of certain paints and lacquers of such
composition and use so
as to be in conformance with Rule 205.
Petit-
ioner alleges that had adequate supplies of non—photochemically react-
ive paints been available,
they would have met the March
31,
1974,
deadline.
Petitioner now alleges that due to short supplies of non-
photochemically reactive solvents, they are unable to meet the March
31,
1974, deadline.
Petitioner therefore asks for time to reevaluate
its compliance plan, to study alternate methods
of technology, and
evaluate both powder and water-based paint formulations.
Petitioner alleges that they have diligently attempted to bring
their facilities into compliance with Rule 205
(f).
The Petition and
Agency recommendation presented in this matter confirm this statement.
Petitioner has reformulated all of their paint stocks but now finds
itself in the position that many other corporations
in the state have
found themselves
in:
no supply to meet their demands.
In addition to
the above steps, Petitioner is investigating the technological feasi-
bility and the equipment requirements and costs of using either powder
coatings or water—based paints.
Petitioner notes that if such a system
can be worked out,
at reasonable costs,
it
is possible to have them in
operation by
December
31,
1974.
Petitioner is also investigating alt-
ernate methods of technology.
Both carbon absorption and/or incinera-
tion devices are under investigation.
Petitioner alleges that in the event
a variance were not granted,
it would be forced to close down its facility, thereby laying off some
150 employees.
The Board again reaffirms its position that failure to
12
—
26
—3—
grant a variance is not the same as
a shutdown order, but merely allows
Petitioner
to
operate
without
fear
of
prosecution.
In
the
instant
case,
the
Board
feels
that
the
diligent
approach
towards
the
problem
warrants
a shield from prosecution,
and thus
a variance will be granted.
The Agency in its investigations has uncovered a number of items
which indicate the effect of Petitioner’s discharges on the environment.
The Auburn Street plant is
just inside the Rockford city limits.
It
is
located between a wooded area and residential areas.
The nearest resi-
dence, however, is
500 feet from the source.
The Agency contacted and
interviewed six citizen witnesses.
Only one noticed yellowish smoke
and odors
in the summertime from stripping of paint racks.
None of the
other witnesses interviewed noticed either odor or dust.
While there
was one complaint during 1973 regarding smoke, there were no complaints
that
could
be
directly
tied
to
emissions
from
the
spray
painting
opera-
tions.
The
South
Main
plant
is
located
in
an
industrial,
commercial
area
within
Rockford.
The
nearest
residence
is
1000
feet from the
source.
Although
no
citizens
were interviewed, no complaints were re-
ceived in 1973 regarding the South Main plant.
An Agency investigator
did not notice any odors in the vicinity of either plant.
The Agency in its recommendation recommends
a six-months variance
grant.
In
the
alternate,
the
Agency
states
that
the
Board
may
dismiss
the
petition
on
the
grounds
that
the
Petitioner
may
file
a
compliance
plan
and
project
completion
schedule
showing
that
the
Petitioner
will
by
May
30,
1975,
reduce
the
organic
material
of
its
coatings
to
20
or
less
of
total
volume.
This procedure would bring
about
compliance
with
Rule
205
(f)
(2)
(d).
The Board feels, however, that in the instant
case it would be
wiser
to
grant
a
full
one—year
period,
thereby
allow-
ing Petitioner to follow the various avenues open to it.
It is also
noteworthy that the Federal Energy Office has established mandatory
allocation of petrochemical feed stocks, to petrochemical producers,
including solvent manufacturers, in a quantity equal to 100
of the
producer’s
current requirements
(Federal Register, Vol.
39,
#10, Part
3, Subpart 2llJ,
January 15, 1974).
Petitioner should utilize such ex-
empt solvents as they become available.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner,
Amerock,
be
granted
a
variance
from
Rule
205
(f)
of
Chapter
II
until
March
31,
1975, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Petitioner shall continue its study regarding powder and
water-based coating systems.
Petitioner shall also con-
12—27
—4—
tinue
to
diligently
investigate
alternate
methods
of
technology.
Petitioner
shall
no
later
than
six
months
from the date of this Order file with the Agency, a com-
pliance plan and project completion schedule detailing
the date by, and methods under which it shall achieve
compliance with Rule 205
(f).
2.
During the term of the variance, Petitioner shall con-
tinue to seek non—photochemically reactive solvents and
use such whenever available.
3.
Petitioner shall report bi-monthly
to the Agency.
Such
reports shall detail what progress has been attained in
regards to Conditions number one and two above.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by t e
Board
on
the
44~
day of
~
1974,
by
a
vote
of
____
12—28