ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Nay 2~1974
IN
THE MATTER OF:
PETITION FOR VARIANCE OF:
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
and
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
PCB
73-
42
Complainant,
)
73-145
V.
)
HOTPOINT,
a Division of General Electric)
Company,
Respondent.
t~ir. Dennis Fields, attorney for the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Mr.
Paul Leeds, attorney for Hotpoint,
a Division of General
Electric Company.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
Hotpoint, a Division of General Electric Company,
operates a Eacility at 5660 West Taylor Street, Chicago,
Illinois.
Home laundry equipment
is
manufactured at this
plant,
Hotpoint paints and oven dries these goods
at
this
facility before distribution.
On January 31,
1973,
Petitioner sought
a variance
~PCB
73-42)
to
operate
its synthetic paint system
(primer
booths,
electrostatic booths, and reinforcing booths)
in excess
Of
particulate
emission levels specified by Rule 203 of
Chapter
Two;
Air Pollution
Control
Regulations
(Chapter Two).
The
variance
was
reauested
to
allow time to modify spray equipment
-:0
reduce
articulate
emissions
and
to reformulate
bh~’enamel
to
allow
the use of exempt
solvents.
HotDoint
requested
that
the
~‘ariance e:~tenduntil September
30,
1973w
for
organic
emissions
and
November
30,
1973,
for
particulate
emissions.
The
Environ~
mentat
?rotection
Agency
~EPA)
recormitended on March 20,
1973
that
the
~.‘ar±ance
be
denied.
EPA
stated that
the
applicable
Rule
was
Rule
3
.
3-ill
of
~he Rules
and.
Regulations
governing the Control
of
Air
Pollution
(Rules and Regulations)
rather
than
Rule
203
of
Thapter
Two.
In
April
10,
197?,
EPA
filed
a
complaint
aaainsl:
Horpcint
~
73~145~
alleging
violations
of
Rule
3.3—111
of
the
RuLes
and
Regulations
as
1:0
painting proc~ssesmentioned
in
Petitioner
‘s
var3inc:a
request
as
well
as other
equipment
utilized
in
the
puint-~
lag
operation
including
a
black
Japan
paint
oven,
a
ground
coat
SJttCffl,,
a
pallet
conveyor
system,
stipple
booths,
a
pin
conveyor
system.
and
a
synthetic
enamel
paint
system.
On
the
same
date;~
12
—
191
—2—
EPA filed a motion for consolidation of the Petition for
Variance and the Complaint.
Petitioner moved on June
12, 1973,
to amend its Variance
Petition by substituting Rule 3.3-111 of the Rules and Regula-
tions for Rule 203 as stated in its original request.
Hotpoint
also sought a variance through November 30,
1973, for its manu-
facturing process identified in the EPA Complaint as the ground
coat system and the pallet conveyoç system.
A hearing on the consolidated action was continued several
times while the parties attempted to reach a settlement.
On
February 4,
1974, a Stipulation was entered into the hearing
record.
In pertinent parts it stated:
“1.
That as a result of various discussions between
the parties and their attorneys,
the interests of all concerned
would be best served by the resolution of these proceedings in
accordance with this Stipulation in lieu of an evidentiary hearing
and briefs and argument before the Pollution Control Board.
“2.
That this Stipulation is conditioned upon and effec-
tive only upon the entry of an order approving same by the
Pollution Control Board.
“3.
An operating permit was issued
(for the black Japan
oven system)
by the Agency on June 14,
1973;
application No.
02111299, ID No.
031 600 ACR.
“4.
The Complaint and Amended Variance Petition, and
this document, are concerned with the remaining four systems at
General Electric’s plant, identified as the synthetic enamel
paint system, ground coat system,pin conveyor system, and
pallet conveyor system.”
These have now all been granted permits.
“5.
The parties further stipulate and agree that inasmuch
as operating permits have been issued by the Agency for all of
General Electric’s systems, and that the plant
is presently in
full compliance with the Act and all applicable rules and regula-
tions governing emissions,
there is no longer any need for a
variance.
“6.
General Electric agrees that it will continue to
inspect its equipment and make all maintenance adjustments or
improvements
as it deems necessary.
“7.
General Electric agrees to remit the sum of Five
Hundred and No/l0O Dollars
($500.00)
to the State of Illinois so
as to avoid any needless litigation.
12
—
192
—3—
“8.
Mr. Kerstin, staff £ngineer for General Electric,
would testify that General Electric spent approximately a
quarter of
a million dollars in modifying and installing the
control equipment for the four systems discussed above.”
9.
The attached tables
9 (a)
and
9 (b):, made part
of
the
Stipulation, list emission rates for the four systems whidh were
granted oermits, as is indicated in point four of the Stipulation.
Table
9.(b)
indicates present particulate emissions from the four
systems.
We accept the Stipulation entered into between the parties.
Using the Hotpoint emission calculation rates
in table 9(a)
as
measured against allowable emissions in table
9 (b), we hold that
Hotpoint violated Rule 3.3—111 of the Rules and Regulations. These
violations occurred during the pre—modification period on the
synthetic enamel paint system,
the ground coat system,
the pin
conveyor system, and the pallet conveyor system.
The penalty is
somewhat low,but we believe that the amount is reasonable here.
The parties have agreed at arms length, and Hotpoint has already
expended considerable sums of money to achieve full compliance
with the Act and Rules and Regulations.
This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
The Petition for Variance~isdismissed.
2.
Hotpoint pay
a penalty of $500.00 for its violation
of Section
9 (a)
of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule
3.3-111 of the Rules and Regulations.
Payment shall be made
within 35 days of the adoption of this Order by certified check
or money order made payable
to State of Illinois, Fiscal Services
Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
3.
Hotpoint will inspect its equipment and make all
maintenance adjustments or improvements necessary to remain in
compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and Rules and
Regulations.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify
that1 the above Opinion and Order was adopted by
the Board on the
~
day of
~.—.,
,
1974,
by a vote of
‘p’
top
Christan L. Moffe~~Clerk
12
—
193
TABLE 9(a)
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS PRIOR TO MODIFICATIONS
IN POUNDS PER HOUR
Process Weight Rate
Allowable Emissions
EPA
HOTPOINT
EPA
HOTPOINT
Paint
Including
Paint
Including
Only
Weight
Only
Weight
M
of Steel
of Steel
Synthetic Enamel
113.2*
300.6
7958
0.6*
1.15
10.33
Paint System
Ground Coat
800.8
1218
8254
2.85
2.94
10.60
System
Pin Conveyor
249.9
205.1
2117
1.06
0.891
4.2&
System
Pallet Conveyor
160
160
2356
1.32
0.755
4.51
System
*
Rake
Oven Only
TABLE 9(b)
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
AFTER MODIFICATIONS IN POUNDS PER HOUR
Process Weight
Allowable
Actual Emission
Rate
Emission
(paint only)
(based on stack
tests)
Synthetic Enamel Paint
300.6
1.15
0.91
System
Ground Coat System
1218
2.94
1.33
Pin Conveyor System
205.1
0.891
0.65
Pallet Conveyor System
160
0.755
0.41
12
—
195