I
I
I
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
4,
1974
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
Home Laundry Division,
Petitioner,
)
I
PCB 74-24
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
I
On January 18,1974,
Petitioner filed with this Board
I
a petition for variance to operate its synthetic enamel paint
system in its plant at 5660 West Taylor Street,
Chicago,
I
Illinois,
in excess of the applicable standards of Rule 205(f)
of
the Illinois Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter Two) effective
December 31,
1973.
Petitioner seeks
a variance to July
1,
1974,
to allow it to develop with its suppliers an alternative formula-
tion for an exempt solvents program
to replace the compliance
program previously approved by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency)
,
which prog~ramcannot be implemented
now due to the lack of supply of exempt solvents for its paint
formulation.
I
Petitioner manufactures washing machines and dryers.
I
Synthetic enamel paint is applied to washing machines and dryers
in a process comprising
a
prime spray booth, electrostatic spray
booth, reinforcing booth, flash—off tunnel, and bake oven.
On March 12,
1974,
a Recommendation was received from the
Agency.
Petitioner has an operating permit,
I.D.
No.
31600AZS,
which was issued by the Agency on August 16,
1973.
This permit
expires March 31,
1974.
“Petitioner submitted
a plan to bring its operation into
compliance with Rule 205(f)
along with its application for an
I
operating permit.
The compliance plan was undertaken to bring
under control photochemical solvent emissions from Petitioner’s
I
paint application process. The plan involved the substitution of
exempt solvents for photochemical solvents. Petitioner has been
I
unable to obtain the exempt solvents, specifically hexyl acetate,
isobutyl acetate, and butyl cellosolve. Because of
the unavail—
ability of these components, Petitioner continues to use photo—
chemical solvents
in its process.
I
uThe emissions of photochemically reactive organic materials
I
i
I
I
I
-2—
I
I
from Petitioner’s process are as follows:
I
Calculated
Allowable
I
Prime booth
14.3 lbs/hr
8 lbs/hr
I
Electrostatic booth
15.3 lbs/hr
8 lbs/hr
Reinforcing booth
29.4 lbs/hr
8 lbs/hr
I
Flash-off tunnel
41.5 lbs/hr
8 lbs/hr
Bakeoven
27.7 lbs/hr
8 lbs/hr
I
“Other possible control methods have been considered by
Petitioner and rejected.
An afterburner for fuel incineration
would require
600,000 cubic feet of natural gas per day, based
on a 50% recovery.
It would take from
18 months to 2 years to
install.
Carbon absorption would also take an estimated two
years to install and complete and it would be inefficient. Water-
I
based paints and hi-solids paints have not yet been developed to
the point where they meet Petitioner’s needs.
Petitioner has
I
assigned its technical staff
to work in coordination with its
suppliers and develop a paint having less than
20 volumetric
I
percent organic material in accordance with Rule 205(f) (2) (D)
This is envisioned
as a long—range project.
I
“Petitioner is presently working on the development of an
alternative formula for an exempt solvents program. Petitioner
has started shop trials to develop proper blends of exempt solvents
and exempt paints.
Petitioner expects
this program to be com-
I
pleted on or before July 1,
1974.
“Petitioner is in compliance with Rule 203(a)
and 203(b)
of
the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations.
I
“Petitioner’s facility is located in an area of heavy
I
industry.
The Agency has received no citizen complaints.
.
“Petitioner has
demonstrated that immediate compliance
I
would pose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship,
since the
exempt solvents it had planned to use are unavailable.”
Petitioner’s planned control program is more than adequate
I
to achieve compliance with Rule 205(f)
and the timetable is
reasonable.
We grant Petitioner’s variance to enable it to
I
develop an alternative paint formulation with exempt solvents.
The Federal Energy Office has established mandatory allocation
of petrochemical feedstocks
to petrochemical producers
-—
including
I
solvent manufacturers
—-
in a quantity equal to 100 percent of the
producer’s current requirements
(Fed.
Reg. Vol.
39, No.
10, Part ~I,
I
Subpart 2llJ, January 15, 1974).
Petitioner should utilize such
exempt solvents as they become available.
I
I
I
12—40
I
I
I
I
I
—3—
I
ORDER
I
Petitioner is hereby granted a variance from Rule 205(f)
of Chapter Two, Illinois Air Pollution Regulations,
for the
period from the date of filing of the Petition in this matter
until July 1,
1974,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
Petitioner shall immediately notify the Agency
I
if any deviation from the compliance timetable
occurs.
I
2.
Petitioner shall submit a progress report on
I
June 1,
1974,
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
I
Division of Air Pollution Control
I
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
This report shall contain the following information:
I
(a)
Monthly amounts of exempt and non—exempt
I
solvent formulations used since the
beginning of this variance.
I
(b)
Status of program to achieve compliance
I
with Rule 205(f)
of Chapter
Two
by July
1,
1974.
I
3.
Petitioner shall utilize as much exempt solvent
formulations as can be furnished by its suppliers.
I
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
I
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the 4’~day of
____________,
1974, by
a vote of
I
a~fV)
~4/~
Christan L. Moff~~,Clerk
I
I
I
I
I
I
12—41
I
I