ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 29, 1974
    A. 0. SMITH CORPORATION
    )
    PETITIONER
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PC 74—70
    )
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    RESPONDENT
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr.
    Marder)
    This action involves a request for variance filed by A.O. Smith
    Corporation on February
    19, 1974
    •
    Petitioner seeks relief from Rule
    205 (f) of Chapter 3 of the Board’s Rules. Rule 205 (f) pertains to
    organic emissions. The
    Agency on March 11, 1974, filed a
    motion to
    dismiss on the grounds that said petition was inadequate in that no
    showing of need pursuant to Board Procedural Rule 401 was entered.
    In response to this motion the Board ordered more information from
    Petitioner.
    Petitioner on April 10, 1974, supplied such additional
    information, which constituted sufficient grounds for an acceptable
    variance petition.
    An
    Agency recommendation filed May
    16, 1974,
    reconaended
    a grant
    subject to certain conditions.
    A.O. Smith owns
    and operates, about four miles outside of Kanka-
    kee, a facility for the production of water heaters and “Harvestores’
    (animal
    food storage units). As part of its operation, Petitioner
    spray coats its finished products. Unit operations such as mixing,
    spraying and baking give rise to emissions of organic solvents which
    are, at times, in violation of Rule 205 (f).
    Petitioner
    has previously filed for and received both operating
    and construction permits from the Agency. Said permits were granted
    in that Petitioner had submitted a plan to bring about compliance
    with Rule 205 (f) by July 1973. This plan contemplated conversion
    to non-photochemically reactive solvents
    •
    The above plan was initia-
    ted on schedule and Petitioner was in full compliance. However, as
    of March 5, 1974, Petitioner’s suppliers were unable to supply exempt
    solvents in large enough quantities to insure total compliance.
    Let-
    ters attached to the petition for variance substantiate this claim.
    Presently one line (Source 143) is in violation of Rule 205 (f).
    12—441
    Emissions from this source are 89.4 lbs/hr (standard 8 lbs/hr). It
    is also possible that other lines will be in non-compliance should
    the supply situation tighten.
    Petitioner has indeed attempted to comply with applicable rules
    as evidenced by the following:
    1. A complete workable reformulation program has been
    accomplished.
    2. Experimentation with water-base4 paints is ongoing.
    Although
    unsuccessful to date, Petitioner intends to
    continue its experimentation and anticipates better
    results in the future.
    3. Petitioner is installing electrostatic coating equipment
    on an existing paint line.
    Petitioner alleges that it would be a hardship upon itself, its
    employees, and its customers should this variance be denied. Petition-
    er employs 1259 persons. Although denial of this variance would not
    mandate a shutdown, it would subject Petitioner to enforcement action.
    In light of the good faith efforts listed above, the Board finds the
    potential hardship worthy of a variance grant.
    The Agency reports no citizen complaints or objections to the vari-
    ance. The plant is located in an industrial area about four miles out-
    side of Kankakee. The industrial park is surrounded by farmland.
    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 be
    granted a variance from Rule 205
    (f)
    for one year from the date of
    this Order, subject to the following conditions:
    A) Petitioner shall utilize as much exempt solvents as
    can be furnished.
    B) Petitioner shall submit monthly reports to:
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Air Pollution Control
    Control Program Coordinator
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    Said reports shall contain as a minimum:
    i.
    The total amount of solvents used.
    ii. The nature and amount of non—exempt
    solvents
    used.
    iii. The nature and amount of exempt solvents used
    and purchased (including the name
    of supplier)
    C) Within six months from the date of this Order, Petitioner
    shall submit to the Agency a modified compliance
    plan to
    replace that which has been nullified by shortages.
    This
    plan may:
    12—442
    —3
    i. Achieve compliance at the expiration of the
    Variance by replacement of photochemically re-
    active solvents with non-reactive solvents dem-
    onstrated to be readily available; or
    ii. Achieve compliance at the expiration of the Var-
    iance by qualification under the Alternative Stan-
    dard of Rule 205 (f) (1); or
    iii. Achieve compliance by May 30, 1975, under the
    provisions of Rule 205 (f) (2) (D)
    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 ow” day of
    ______,
    1974, by a vote of
    $P
    to
    12—443

    Back to top