ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 12, 1974

NATIONAL METALWARES, INC.

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 74—239

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND. ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)

Petitioner, which manufactures and paints various parts

for the furniture and appliance industry, filed on June 24, 1974,

a variance request from Rule 205(f) of the Air Pollution Regulations

(Chapter Two). Petitioner is located in a light industrial area

with neighboring farms and residences at 900 North Russell Avenue,

Aurora, Illinois. National Metaiwares, Inc. requested a Variance

“until such time that adequate supplies of exempt paints and solvents

are available.” Petitioner did not indicate whether alternative

means of compliance with Rule 205(f) of Chapter Two had been in-

vestigated. Petitioner included in its petition letters from

suppliers which stated that orders for exempt solvents could not be

filled.

Rule 205(f) of Chapter Two limits the discharge of organic

material into the atmosphere to no more than 8 pounds per hour from

any single emission source. National Metalwares, Inc. specified in

its Petition that 24 to 28 pounds per hour of photochemically re-

active material are released into the air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its

Recommendation on August 12, 1974. The Agency recommended that the

Variance be denied or, in the alternative, be granted only for six

months and be subject to certain reporting and planning requirements.

The Agency stated that although some citizens complained of the

facility’s odors, these individuals did not object to the granting

of the Variance. The Agency premised its recommended denial on

the following facts:

1. The Agency was unsure of the extent of Petitioner~s

efforts to secure exempt solvents.

2. The lack of investigation of alternative means of corn—

pliance by the Petitioner meant to the Agency that arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship had not been proved. Regarding the issue

of alternative compliance methods, the Agency stated: “9. When

representatives of Petitioner were asked about alternative corn—

pliance standards under Rule 205(f) (1), they replied that after-

burners were never seriously considered because of the heavy capital

expenditure that would be incurred. Also, Petitioner believed that

it would have difficulty acquiring a fuel supply allocation. How-

13—603

---

e~eit, Petitioner stated that

it would

he

wiii~ngto achieve

coin—

pLiance uy means o~

wauer~’basedpaints

or

by

the

alternative

st.andards of Rule

2~35,f

(1), if Petitioner finds that it has no

other aiternat~ve

3. Since

a:ea residents

were

complaining of odors,

Petitioner should

make

renewed efforts to alleviate the problem.

We hold that Petitioner is entitled to a

short

variance

froe

Rule

205~f) of Chapter Two. The Agencv~sarguments

are sound

and deserve comment. First, recent shortages of exempt solvents

j~

the

industry are well-known. The letters

£ roe

suppliers

sub-’

mitted.

by

Petitioner reinforce this position. Furthermore, in

tne absence of ccntrary evidence, we presume that Petitioner’s

aLlegations were

made

in good faith. Second, Petitioner has failed

to fully

investigate alternative means of compliance

as

noted by the

Agenc~i ,po~nt2, above) and as

demanded

by our Procedural Rule 401

(b.

However, in dealing with

variance requests under 205(f)

,

the

Board has recognized

the suddenness

of the exempt solvent shortage

and the possible lack of time available to test alternate compliance

mechanisms. :n Paragraph

9 quoted from the

Agency Recommendation,

Petitioner indicates Lhat some investigation has been

undertaken

and

expresses a willingness to achieve compliance with 205(f), Also, no

citizen objection was voiced to the grant of the Variance,

A

short.

variance coupled with Agency surveillance

is the best method to

achieve a satisfactory

abatement program,

Third, efforts to a?—

leviate tne odor polIut~on problem will not be delayed by the

grant of

this Variance. Possible control equipment

—

including

the installation of an

afterburner

-

will

be included in the re-’

qurrernents for reporting to the

Agency,~

The Board is reevaluating its posat~on on the grant of

variances from Ru1~

205 if’~ of Chapter Two. The test of arbitrary

ana unroasonable hardship involves a balancing approach and will

change with the circumstances.

Stricter scrutiny of these variance

requests can be expected ii’. the future for the following reasons.

First~ in the Chicago area. the recent wave of ozone alerts means

that additional abatement procedures are necessary to protect the

health of the public.

Second, the shortage of exempt solvents has

existed for almost one year.

Companies have had sufficient time to

either find other sources or undertake alternate methods of comrn

pliance with Rule 205(f~~

This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board,

,ORDEP

T IS THE ORDER of

the Pollution Control Board that

Petitioner is granted a Variance from Rule 205(f) of

Chapter Two

until December 3?, 1974, subject to the following conditions:

(a)

Petitioner shall utilize as much non—photo-

chemically reactive materials in its Ransberg

painting system as can be furnished by suppliers.

13— 604

---

(b) Petitioner shall submit reports fob the months

of September, October, November, and December,

1974, to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road.

Springfield, Illinois 62706

The monthly reports should include the total

amount of solvents used, the nature and amount

of non—exempt solveiits used, the nature and

amount of exempt solvents used, the 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 2 months of the date of this Board Order,

Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a modified.

compliance plan to replace that which has been

nullified by shortages. This plan may:

i. Achieve compliance at the expiration

of the Variance by replacement of photo-

chemically 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 of Rule 205(f) (1); or

iii, Achieve compliance by May 30, 1975,

under the provisions of Rule 205(f) (2) (D).

(d) The compliance plan under (c) shall indicate the

method to be used to abate odors emitted from

Petitioner’ s facility.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certif t at the above Opinion and Order was adopted

on the /&‘\.day of

~

1974, bYQ~::of