ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 18, 1974
OLIN CORPORATION
PETITIONER
V.
)
PCB 74—27
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONDENT
THOMAS B. MARTIN, ATTORNEY,
in behalf of OLIN CORPORATION
RONALD A. LINICK, ATTORNEY,
in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Marder)
This case comes to the Board on Petition of Olin Corporation,
filed January 21, 1974,
requesting variance from Rule 205
(f)
of
Chapter
2 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
On March 21, 1974,
the Board denied an Agency motion to dismiss
the Petition.
On April
10,
1974,
the Agency filed a recommendation, recommend-
ing the Board grant Petitioner
a variance for six months, subject
to certain conditions.
No hearing was held.
This variance is requested for Petitioner’s Roll-Bond aluminum
heat exchange panel operation in East Alton, Illinois.
The Agency
has granted
a permit
for this operation to the Petitioner.
The
permit has as its compliance plan the shifting of all paint formulas
to “exempt” solvents by December
31,
1973.
Olin worked out a new paint formula ~ith its supplier, the P.D.
George Co.,
St. Louis, Missouri.
A formula was found which proved
to be acceptable
on October
2,
1973.
P.D. George then notified
Olin that it could not obtain one of the solvents for the formula
(Ethylene Glycci n-I3utyl Ether)
,
because of
a great shortage of
supply.
Olin
then
atternoted
to
obtain
the
solvent
but
failed.
o:Lin
alleges that the
solvent
is
on
strict
allocation
and
no
new customers
are being allowed
(Pet.
p.
2)
12
—93
—2—
On October
30,
1973,
Olin submitted a new plan to the Agency,
ex-~
tending the time needed for compliance.
On November 1,
1973,
a new paint formula was proven acceptable by
an on-line test.
On November
2,
1973, P.D. George notified Olin
that it could obtain the solvents necessary to produce the paint.
On November 28 Olin submitted a new compliance schedule showing com-
pliance with Rule
205
(f)
by December 31,
1973.
On December 12, 1973, Olin was notified by P.D. George that they
again couldn~tsupply the paint, this time because isobutyl acetate
could not he obtained for the resin.
Again Olin tried to obtain
this material, but failed because it
is also on strict allocation.
However,
several suppliers indicated that this situation might change
later in 1974
(Pet.
P.
3)
Petitioner~soperation
uses
about
7000
gallons
of
paint,
and
2000
gallons
of
thinner,
per
annum
(Pet.
P.
3,
Agency
Rec.
P.
1).
This
use
is
broken
down
further to
3,5
gallons
per
hour
between
8
a.m.
and
4
p.m.
and
1.75
gallons
per
hour
between
4
p.m.
and
12
midnight,
five
days per week.
The
emission
rate is
17.7
lbs.
‘per hr.
during
the
day
and
8,85
lbs.
per
hr.
on
the
night
Shift
(Pet.
P.
3, Agency Rec.
P.
2)
.
This
is
above
the
allowed 8 lbs.
per hr.
in
Rule 205
(f).
The composition of the solvent as presently sprayed is
as follows:
Xyloi
42,4
~:wt)
44.4
(vol.)
Toluol
31,7
(wt)
32.4
(vol.)
Ethylene Glycol
Mono Ethyl Ether
Acetate
21.1
(wt)
18.4
(vol.)
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
4,8
(wt)
4.8
(vol.)
(Pet,
p.
3, Agency Rec.
P.
2)
Petitioner
alleges and the Agency concurs there is no substantial
environmental
impact by
the
continued
emissions.
There
is
no
Los
Angeles-type
~hotochemica1
smog in
the
area,
and
neither
Petitioner
nor
the
Agency
has
received
any
complaints
or
objections
to
the
con-
tinuation
of
the
emissions,
Also,
the Agency investigation noted no
odor problem f~omthis operation
(Pet.
P.
5, Agency Rec.
P.
3).
Petitioner alleges
it would he forced to curtail its Roll-Bond op-
eration
if
it
is denied a variance.
In its Petition, Olin
states
that
loss
to
itself,
customers,
and
employees
would
be
too
difficult
for
crecise computation, hut
it
would
be
great.
Though
a
variance
denial
is
not
a
shutdown
order,
it
would
seem
that
Olin
would
suffer
a
card—
ship
if
the
variance
was
deriacu,
The
Agency
also
states
that
PetitiOs
er
has
made
a
reasonable
effort
to
comply
with
Rule
205
(f)
,
but
has
not
neen
able
to
because
of
SItuations
eeyond
its
control
(Agency
Rec.
P.
2).
The
Agency
states
ttiat
although
Olin
has
been
before
the
Board
~2~94
—3—
numerous times on variance cases, there has not been an enforcement
action filed against it to date.
Olin proposes a three-pronged approach to bring itself into com-
pliance with Rule
205
(f).
The first is to develop water—based
paints.
The second is
to develop another solvent paint that would
use other exempt solvents.
The third is for Olin to continue to
look for available isobutyl acetate.
Olin will be pursuing all of
these approaches concurrently.
If
a water—based paint or
a new solvent—based paint
is
used,
Olin
will have to secure mandatory certification of the paint by
the
Nat-
ional Sanitary Foundatiom,
a proce~sthat takes
about six months
(Pet.
P.
4).
The Board finds
this to be a reasonable compliance plan.
The Agency has recommended variance for only six months, but be-
cause of the possible six-months delay Olin will have in getting new
paint certified, the Board will grant a variance for one year.
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
Olin
Corpora-
tion
be
granted
a
variance
from
Rule
205
(f)
until
April
1,
1975~ or
until
it
can obtain paints which comply with Rule
205
(f)
,
whichever
is shorter, for its Roll-Bond operation, subject to the following
conditions:
a)
Olin shall follow the
compliance
plan
outlined
in
its
Pet-
ition
and
this
Opinion;
b)
Olin shall use paints with exempt solvents whenever they are
available;
c)
Olin shall submit quarterly reports to the Agency beginning
July
1,
1974, detailing all research done and its status as
to compliance with Rule 205
(f)
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 the
Board on the
/X~”
day of
___________,
1974,
by
a vote of ~
to
C
.
(~i~
-
4.
~
1)
-~.
~
i
.~
~
~
/, ~
/
‘./~
~2
-95