ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 5, 1974

SCHWINN BICYCLE COMPANY,

Petitioner~

vs.

PCB 74~2l8

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent~

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr~Seaman):

On June 11, 1974, Schwinn Bicycle Company filed its Petition For

Variance, seeking therein variance from the provisions of Rule 205(f)

of the Board~s Air Pollution Regulations for a period of one year~

Petitioner operates four plants in Chicago for the manufacture of

bicycles and wheeled toys. Petitioner employs approximately 2,200

persons. In Petitioners Plant #4, located at 4444 West Ohio, bicycle

frames are welded and polished, and a primer coating is applied. In

Plant #1, at 1718 North Kildare, the bicycles are assembled. This

operation includes polishing, plating and painting the frames and

associated parts~

Petitioner employed various consulting firms to determine Petitioner~s

compliance with Illinois air pollution regulations. This data was sub~

sequently utilized in filing for Petitioner~soperating permit applications.

The study revealed that certain emission sources, specifically three

assembly line painting processes using solvent base paints, were each

discharging more than 8 pounds per hour of organic material into the

atmosphere. Such emissions would be in violation of Rule 205(f).

In December 1972, Petitioner filed operating permit applications for

these emission sources specifying compliance through change to solvents

which are exempt under Rule 205(f). Petitioner made the change to e~empt

solvents and the operating permits were granted in 1973.

Petitioner has received Operating Permits for its paint line

(November 29, 1973) and primer line (July 20, 1973) at Plant #1 and for

its primer line (February 21, 1974) at Plant #4.

In Petitioner1s Plant #4, the bicycle frames are assembled. Then the

unpainted frame is sent through the primer line. In the primer line, the

framesare cleaned with water, phosphates, and chromic acid to prepare the

steel for painting and to add a light corrosion-resistant finish. These

clean frames are then dipped into a primer tank before passing through a 365°F

baking oven. The last two devices are the sources of emissions from Plant

#4 with which this Petitioner is concerned.

13 — 525

---

-2-

Petitioner

asserts

that the emission of photochemically reactive

hydrocarbons

from

this source is 18.13 lb/hr.

In Petitioner’s Plant #1, there

are

two sources of emissions:

the primer paint line for bicycle front forks. and the color paint line

for the frames. The primer paint line operates in a manner similar to

the

line

in Plapt

#4. On Petitioner’s color paint line, the frames

are

passed

through

‘a Ransberg aluminum spray booth, a drying tunnel, and a

drying oven before going through three color spray booths and a baking

oven. Petitioner asserts that the enfissions of photochemical ly reactive

hydrocarbons

from

the primer line, are 4.46 lb/hr and

from

the paint line

are 95.60

lb/hr.

Petitioner states that a variance is necessary due to major shortages

of exempt solvents in the market. Petitioner alleges that it has been

unable to procure

from

its suppliers at

any

price sufficient exempt

solvents to achieve continued compliance. Petitioner has supplied exhibits

and

an affidavit in support of its alleged inability to obtain sufficient

quantities of exempt solvents.

Petitioner asserts that the marketability of wheeled toys and bicycles

is substantially influenced by the cosmetic appeal of glossy finishes

provided by solvent

based paints and

that changes

in basic painting methods

to either water

base

paints

or powder coatings are not feasible as the

existing system

is incompatible with these processes and

any

changeover

would necessitate a prolonged shutdown of these facilities.

Petitioner’s Plant #4 is located in

an industrial area. A school

is one-half mile north, the nearest residences are one-third mile east, and

a hospital is one mile southeast. There have been no citizen complaints,

and there have been no objections to the granting of a variance to

Petitioner’s Plant #4.

Petitioner’s Plant #1 is located in an industrial area. The nearest

residence is 500 feet to thesouth of the source. There have been

citizen complaints and there have been no objections to the granting of

a variance to Petitioner’s Plant #1.

The

Agency

believes that the hardship to Petitioner, its employees,

and its dealers outweighs any additional damage which might be caused

to the environment by

the granting of this variance.

Variance will be granted; however, the period of variance shall be

for a shorter period

than the year requested, and subject to certain

conditions.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the

Board.

13—526

---

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Schwinn

Bicycle Company be granted a variance for the subject facilities from

the provisions of Rule 205(f) of the Illinois Air Pollution Regulations

until March 31, 1975, subject to the following conditions:

a. Petitioner shall utilize as much exempt solvent formulations

as c.an be furnished by suppliers.

b. Petitioner shall submit monthly reports to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

?200 Churchill Road

pringfield, Illinois 62706

The monthly reports shall include the total amount of solvents used, the

nature and amount of non-exempt solvents used, the nature and amount

of exempt solvents used, and amount and nature of exempt solvents

purchased (indicating the supplier), the amount and nature of non-exempt

solvents purchased (indicating the supplier), and the amount and nature

of solvents in inventory at the beginning of each month.

c. Within five months of the date of this Order, Petit.ioner shall

submit to the Agency a modified compliance plan to replace that which

has been nullified by shortages. This pian may:

i. Achieve.compliance at the expiration of the

Variance by replacmeent of photochemically

reactive solvents with non-reactive solvents

demonstrated to be readily available; or

ii. Achieve compliance at the expiration of the

Variance by qualification under the Alternative

Standard Rule 2O5(f)(l); 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 Co trol Board,

certif~~ the above Opinion and Order~adopte~on this

_________

13 — 527